Obteniendo ficha de resolución

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the return dict shape, the 'ok'/'nota' fields, the edge case where a row exposes no PDF, and that some fields are site-dependent alternatives (especialidad?/organo_jurisdiccional? or sala_suprema?). It stops short of stating read-only semantics or error behavior explicitly.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then uses clearly labeled Args and Devuelve (returns) sections. It is dense and the return enumeration is long, but the structure is organized and every element carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the returned dict, including the 'nota' case and alternative field sets, and documents both parameters. For a simple 2-param read tool, an agent has enough to invoke it and interpret the result correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'ses' is defined as the session returned by the search tools, and 'index' is defined as the global 0-based row index from the search results. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the complete FICHA/RESUMEN of a resolution looked up by 'index', and enumerates the fields that come back. It distinguishes itself from the search siblings by naming buscar_resoluciones/buscar_laudos as the source of 'ses', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from fichas_resoluciones (plural).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by describing 'ses' as coming from buscar_resoluciones or buscar_laudos and 'index' as the row index from those searches, it outlines the intended two-step workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling fichas_resoluciones and no exclusions or preconditions.

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