ficha_proceso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that optional header fields appear only when the process publishes them, that items may be empty for emergency processes, and that a signed PDF URL requires a separate call to url_documento(uuid). It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the resource identity, then cleanly partitioned into Args and Devuelve sections. It is dense but every element (optional-field caveat, empty-items caveat, url_documento pointer) earns its place given the absent output schema.

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 and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the full return shape (ok, url_ficha, cabecera, items, cronograma, documentos) and noting edge cases. It is nearly self-sufficient, lacking only error/authentication behavior.

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 both parameters are fully explained: 'ses' is the session returned by buscar_procesos and 'index' is the 0-based row index from that same search. This compensates completely for the empty schema and tells the agent exactly how to obtain and format each value.

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 resource (FICHA DE SELECCION de un proceso del SEACE) and enumerates what it contains: cabecera, items, cronograma, documentos. The provenance of its inputs from buscar_procesos implicitly distinguishes it, but it never contrasts itself with the similarly named sibling fichas_procesos, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 supplies a useful calling chain by stating that 'ses' comes from buscar_procesos and 'index' is the row index of that result, which implies when to use it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as fichas_procesos or historial_proceso, and no exclusions.

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