Documentos que acompañan a un escrito

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description reveals important behavior: looking only at `Doc.` can produce a false-complete result, the tool returns location references rather than file contents, and null fields mean the panel does not publish that column rather than that the data is missing. It also warns that panels differ across competencias, with specific examples for civil and suprema. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, critical caveat about hidden annexes, request cost, output semantics, and cross-competencia schema differences are all covered without fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: when to use it, what it actually returns, how to use those results with `obtener_documento`, and how to interpret nulls across competencias. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the underlying two-column model and why `anexo_ruta`/`anexo_referencia` can be null depending on the panel and whether the folio offers annexes. This context helps an agent interpret parameter values correctly in edge cases.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a precise verb and resource: it retrieves the documents that accompanied a written submission, explicitly framing them as a channel distinct from the resolution. It also differentiates itself from the sibling `obtener_documento` by clarifying that this tool returns the references needed to fetch each annex, not the annex itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: query this tool when an actuación has `tiene_anexo: true`, and request only the specific folio of interest, never a sweeping scan. It also names the alternative (`obtener_documento`) for actually retrieving the annex once you have the references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.