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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing the output contents (skills plus a written example plus an ATS-filter flag) and the data source (banco de habilidades de MissCV). It does not mention any rate limits or cost, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return payload before the provenance note. No filler, though the trailing 'Sale del banco de habilidades publicado en MissCV' is closer to branding than operational information.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it conveys what comes back (skills, example phrasing, ATS relevance) so the agent knows what to expect. It stops short of explaining matching behavior when the role string is ambiguous or unknown.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already gives the meaning and examples («ventas», «enfermería», «contador»). The description restates the idea with 'según el oficio o el rol' but adds no syntax, granularity or matching behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (devuelve) and a precisely scoped resource: habilidades técnicas y blandas para el CV según el oficio/rol, además del ejemplo de redacción y el indicador ATS. That specificity separates it naturally from siblings like preguntas_de_entrevista or analizar_mi_cv, which cover different stages of the job-search workflow.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for building the skills section of a CV for a given role. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. buscar_plantilla for templates or analizar_mi_cv for reviewing an existing CV).

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