detalle_pac

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does supply the return dict shape ({'ok','ses','procesos':[...]}) plus the workflow dependency on buscar_pac, which is genuinely useful given no output schema. It says nothing about permissions, error/out-of-range index behavior, or result-size limits, so the safety and failure profile remains undisclosed.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in caps and organized into Args/Devuelve blocks, so an agent can scan it quickly. There is minor redundancy: the summary already mentions 'mes y fuente de financiamiento', which reappears as mes_programado/fuente_financiamiento in the return list.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and the return structure, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing edge-case handling (invalid index, empty PAC) keeps it from being fully complete.

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: entidad ('nombre de la entidad, igual que buscar_pac'), anio ('anio del PAC'), and index ('fila del resultado de buscar_pac, 0-based; normalmente 0') are all explained, including the non-obvious index semantics. It could add format expectations (e.g., whether anio is a bare year string), but the gap is small.

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 verb+resource ('LISTADO DE PROCESOS PROGRAMADOS del PAC de la entidad') and states the scope ('busca en el PAC por entidad/anio y baja el detalle'). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling buscar_pac by positioning itself as the drill-down step whose index comes from that tool's result rows.

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 clearly implied: the tool searches the PAC by entity/year and downloads detail, and the 'index' arg is described as a row of buscar_pac's result (0-based, normally 0), which spells out the intended call sequence. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives beyond the parent tool.

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