url_documento

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 discloses that the URL is signed on the fly with short validity, that the server does NOT download the file, and precise error semantics (nonexistent uuid may manifest as a timeout, whereas a malformed uuid is rejected instantly). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 core purpose, then structured Args and Devuelve sections. Slightly long due to the error-handling note, but every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape ({'ok','url','archivo'}), the nature of the URL, and failure modes. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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% and the schema only names the field 'uuid' with no description, so the description must compensate. It does: it identifies the uuid as the document id listed in ficha_proceso and supplies a concrete example value, fully disambiguating the parameter.

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 and resource: returns a signed URL to download a SEACE process document, with concrete examples (bases integradas, integraciones). This clearly separates it from the sibling url_documento_contrato, which handles contract documents.

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 ties usage to a prerequisite by saying the uuid comes from the document listed in ficha_proceso, which tells the agent what to call first. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternatives (url_documento_contrato, url_perfil_proveedor) or state when not to use this tool.

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