historial_proceso

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by disclosing the exact return shape ({'ok','url','cabecera','historial':[...]}), which tells the agent what it gets back. It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or failure modes for a scraping-style tool.

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 an Args/Devuelve breakdown. The formatting is efficient and every line earns its place; slightly list-like but not padded.

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 only 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies both parameter meaning and a return-value sketch. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only auth/error behavior is unaddressed, which is minor for this scope.

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% (only titles 'Ses' and 'Index'), so the description must compensate, and it does: ses is defined as the session returned by buscar_procesos and index as the global 0-based row index from that search. The 0-based convention and provenance are genuinely added meaning.

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 the unit returned: each convocatoria with its etapa and estado. It also anchors itself to a sibling ('ses, index de buscar_procesos'), so an agent can tell it apart from buscar_procesos and ficha_proceso without opening a 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?

The description implies a prerequisite flow (you must first run buscar_procesos to obtain ses and index), which is useful. However it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus ficha_proceso, fichas_procesos, or detalles_contratos for related process data, so selection among siblings remains inferred.

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