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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the result is normalized JSON for ATS/agent/interview workflows and the call has a specific price. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two short sentences with the core transformation and output shape front-loaded. The price line is the only secondary detail but is decision-relevant for a paid tool. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The tool is simple and the annotations plus schema cover safety and input limits, but there is no output schema and the description only vaguely promises 'JSON listo para ATS...' without specifying the normalized structure. It also leaves the boundary with normalizar-requisitos-csv unresolved, so an agent selecting among siblings is left guessing.

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% for the single csv parameter, including the required header and the 1 MB limit, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only adds the general semantic that the CSV contains extracted job-offer requirements; this is marginal but not misleading.

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 has a specific verb ('Normaliza') and resource ('requisitos extraídos de ofertas laborales') and states the output format ('JSON listo para ATS, agentes y flujos de preparación de entrevistas'). However, it overlaps heavily with the sibling normalizar-requisitos-csv and does not explain how this tool differs from that one, so it is clear but not differentiating.

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 usage context is implied: the tool should be used on requirements already extracted from job offers, not for the extraction itself. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over normalizar-requisitos-csv or extraer-requisitos-oferta, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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