fichas_procesos

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 caps (50 with 'resumen', 8 with 'completa'), dedup of duplicate indices, and partial-failure behavior (failed indices land in 'faltas' with a reason while the rest are still returned). It doesn't cover auth/permission needs beyond the 'ses' provenance, but the operational limits and failure semantics are well surfaced.

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-loads the purpose in the first clause, then organizes details under Args and Devuelve. Dense but every section earns its place; the only minor cost is the structured block format making it slightly long for three parameters.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must explain returns, which it does by listing the result keys ('ok', 'ses', 'profundidad', 'fichas', 'faltas', 'nota') and the 'faltas' shape. Together with param and cap details this is sufficient for correct invocation, with only the inner 'fichas' payload left to the referenced profundidad modes.

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 entirely, and it does: 'ses' is tied to buscar_procesos output, 'indices' is defined as global 0-based indices of that search with dedup and cap rules, and 'profundidad' is explained as 'resumen' (search-row fields) vs 'completa' (full ficha as in ficha_proceso). All three parameters are meaningfully documented.

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+scope: a batch of process fichas/summaries from the SAME search in ONE call. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ficha_proceso by noting it avoids repeating that call per index, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when (multiple indices from the same search, in one call) and the when-not (use ficha_proceso individually if you only need one). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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