Leyendo códigos SNIP/CUI

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return shape ({'ok','ses','index','filas'}) and the key edge case that 'filas' is empty when the process publishes no CUI ('Sin informacion'). It does not explain failure behavior when 'ses' is expired or 'index' is out of range.

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-loaded with purpose, then clearly separated Args and Devuelve sections with zero filler. Every line carries information an agent needs to chain or interpret the call.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the dependency relationship, the parameter meaning, and the return-structure plus empty-case semantics. Nothing essential for correct invocation or result interpretation 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'ses' is defined as the session from buscar_procesos and 'index' as the global 0-based row index of that search. This is exactly the chaining context the bare schema lacks, though neither param's type/validation or out-of-range behavior is detailed.

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 specific resource ('CODIGOS SNIP/CUI') and verb ('Leyendo') and ties it to the popup 'Codigos' of the buscador, so an agent knows exactly what is fetched. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by depending on buscar_procesos output, though it never explicitly contrasts with ficha_proceso or detalles_contratos.

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?

It makes the workflow clear: 'ses' must be the session returned by buscar_procesos and 'index' is the row index from that search, which tells the agent when this tool applies. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., use ficha_proceso for full detail), so it stops short of a 5.

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