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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, yet the description still adds substantial context: exact return payload shape, the presence of a Spanish prose answer mirrored in 'structuredContent' beginning with 'url', a mandatory linking obligation, and the disclaimer/citation constraints ('no asesoramiento laboral', 'Cita «Fuente: Reinventa»'). This is behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and outcome, then usage, then response/format rules. Every clause carries information, but the final disclaimer and citation sentences are dense and could be split or trimmed without losing guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned fields, the structuredContent envelope, and the fallback payload. Combined with the sibling routing and constraint notes, an agent has everything needed to call and to use the result correctly.

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 parameter is documented, so baseline is met; the description nonetheless adds real value by showing that 'texto' accepts free natural-language phrasings ('contable', 'llevo la contabilidad de una pyme', 'ingeniera de software'), which tells the agent not to normalize input to a canonical job title.

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 ('Busca una profesión ... entre los 50 perfiles con tablas de Reinventa') and fully spells out both outcomes: on a hit it returns the profile fields, on a miss it returns nearest professions, detected sector and next steps. It is clearly distinguishable from evaluar_tareas, which it explicitly routes to.

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?

Explicit ordering rule: 'Úsala primero cuando no sepas si la profesión está en las tablas'. It also gives the negative case and the follow-up path (describir las tareas y usar evaluar_tareas, o la evaluación completa donde la IA propone tareas), so the agent knows both when to call it and what to do after.

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