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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds the pricing per call and the intended downstream use (filtering by an agent), but does not elaborate on side effects, language, or output specifics. 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?

A single sentence delivers the core purpose, followed by a pricing note. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and each part adds distinct value (function, output elements, cost).

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the extracted elements but does not describe the output structure (e.g., field names, JSON format). Pricing and input type are covered, but an agent might need more detail on how to consume the result. Still, it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema describes 'text' as free text without personal data, while the description adds that it must be a public job offer, enriching the semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, this additional context goes beyond the schema, though it does not specify format constraints.

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 clearly states it converts job offer text into structured requirements (mandatory/desirable, years, modality, location) for filtering, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'convierte-requisitos', but the specified output elements make its scope evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The description only states what it does and the pricing, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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