Leyendo historial del proceso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the return shape and that ses is a prior session. It does not state read-only semantics explicitly, nor error behavior for invalid ses/index. The return-value disclosure is the main added value beyond the token nature of params.

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?

Structured with clear Args and Devuelve sections; front-loaded description of the resource followed by parameter and return documentation. No filler, though slightly verbose in the header line.

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, the description supplies the return structure (ok, url, cabecera, historial), which an agent needs. Both required params are explained, leaving only edge-case behavior undocumented.

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, and it does: it defines ses as the session returned by buscar_procesos and index as the 0-based global row index from that search. This meaningfully documents both parameters beyond the bare schema titles.

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 ('HISTORIAL DE CONTRATACIONES del proceso') and clarifies it returns each convocatoria with its etapa and estado. It associates itself with buscar_procesos through the ses/index dependency, aiding differentiation, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ficha_proceso.

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 dependency on buscar_procesos (ses returned by it, index from its search rows) implies the workflow context of when to call it. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative for retrieving per-process data.

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