Leyendo acciones del ítem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape and semantics: ok/url/cabecera/item/acciones and the meaning of each action (convocatoria publication, adjudicado, contrato, etc.). It omits error behavior, permissions, and rate limits, but the critical 'what you get' behavior for this read operation is covered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then structured Args and Devuelve sections. Dense but no filler; the return-value spec is a slightly run-on nested literal but remains parseable.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies both parameter provenance and a full return-value breakdown, which is what an agent needs. The remaining gap (error/edge-case handling) is minor.

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%, yet the description fully compensates: 'ses' is sourced from buscar_procesos, 'index' is the 0-based global row index, and 'nro_item' is the 1-based ordinal within ficha_proceso items. The explicit 0-based vs 1-based distinction is exactly the kind of detail that prevents off-by-one invocation errors.

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 opening 'ACCIONES REALIZADAS POR ITEM de un proceso' states a specific verb+resource: it returns the action lifecycle of a single procurement item. This is distinguishable from siblings like historial_proceso (process-level history) and ficha_proceso (item listing), though the description never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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 documents the prerequisite chain: 'ses' comes from buscar_procesos and 'nro_item' derives from the 'items' order in ficha_proceso, so an agent knows it must call those tools first. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternative comparison.

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