Obteniendo ficha del 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 so well: it documents the return shape, flags that cabecera fields are optional, notes an edge case (emergency processes or unpublised items yield empty 'items'), and routes the agent to url_documento for signed PDF URLs. It omits permission/auth requirements, but the behavioral picture for this read operation is largely complete.

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 in the first line, followed by clearly labeled Args and Devuelve sections. The return documentation is dense and long, but justified because no output schema exists and the structure is genuinely complex.

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 tool with an undocumented schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the workflow prerequisite, both parameter meanings, the full return structure, an edge case, and a follow-up tool link. Only auth/permission context is missing, which is minor for this retrieval tool.

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 does: 'ses' is defined as the session from buscar_procesos, and 'index' as the 0-based index of that search's row. Both parameters gain meaning not present in the bare schema.

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+resource: the selection record ('ficha de seleccion') of a SEACE process, enumerating its components (cabecera, items, cronograma, documentos). This clearly tells an agent what it gets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like fichas_procesos, historial_proceso, or detalle_item, so an agent must infer scope.

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 Args section implies the workflow: 'ses' is the session returned by buscar_procesos and 'index' is the row index from that search, effectively stating a prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance against the many sibling lookup tools. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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