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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations: the response carries both a Spanish human-ready text and identical data in «structuredContent» beginning with «url», the no-guide fallback returns a message plus the list of guides, and the tool is explicitly framed as orientative, not labour advice, with prohibitions on recommending quitting a job or naming companies/people. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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 return-value description is front-loaded and tight, but the ~50-item profession list consumes most of the text and is costly in tokens. It does real work as an implicit enum, yet a more compact or referenced form would have been better structured.

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 fully carries the return-shape burden (text plus structuredContent with url), describes the not-found path, the citation/attribution requirement, and the safety boundaries. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing for a single-parameter read tool.

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 documents the single «profesion» parameter with an example, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by restating the name-or-slug lookup, giving the slug example «analista-financiero», and effectively supplying an implicit enum of ~50 valid profession names that the schema lacks.

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 concrete verb and resource («Devuelve la guía … de reinventa.es») and enumerates exactly what the guide contains: introduction, per-task category/score/horizon/explanation/action, weekly plan and link. It is very clear what the tool delivers, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tareas_de_una_profesion, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.

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?

Explains how to look up («por nombre o por slug»), what happens when no guide exists (says so and lists available ones), and how to present the result (link the url, cite «Fuente: Reinventa»). It gives clear operational context but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to buscar_profesion, evaluar_tareas or tareas_de_una_profesion.

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