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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral content beyond them: the output is questions paired with an answer tip, grouped by theme, and the no-argument fallback returns one per theme. It does not disclose volume or limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the output shape and ending with the fallback behavior. Slight redundancy with the title ('Preguntas de entrevista con consejos') but no filler or padding.

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 compensates by describing the return content (question + tip, ordered by theme), and the single optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though result volume remains unspecified.

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 100% and the single optional parameter is documented, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by naming additional valid themes (fortalezas y debilidades, trabajo remoto, preguntas incómodas) beyond the schema's examples and by defining the semantics of omitting 'tema', which the schema does not state.

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 ('Devuelve preguntas de entrevista de trabajo con un consejo para responder cada una') plus the organizing dimension (tema). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like analizar_mi_cv or buscar_plantilla, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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 gives one implicit usage cue — omitting 'tema' returns one question per category — which tells the agent how to invoke it, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or what conditions make it inappropriate.

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