Resolviendo URL del documento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it says the URL is signed on the fly, has short validity, the server does not download the file, and distinguishes timeout behavior for a nonexistent uuid from instant rejection of a malformed uuid.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly separated into Args and Devuelve sections. Every sentence adds useful information, including the non-obvious timeout and no-download behavior.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: parameter source, return keys, URL validity, no file download, and error-case behavior.

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%, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter: it explains that uuid is the document uuid listed in ficha_proceso and gives a concrete example UUID.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a signed URL for downloading a SEACE process document, with examples such as integrated bases. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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?

It tells the agent where the uuid comes from: the document listed in ficha_proceso. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with the sibling url_documento_contrato 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.