workana_mejores_oportunidades

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

Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world profile. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what the deep analysis actually does — it pulls the client's payment history and returns score-ordered results with alerts and tips, and it filters out low-budget / high-competition listings. It does not mention cost/time behavior, but that lives in 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action sequence and closed with the use case. No filler, and the ordered pipeline structure mirrors how the tool actually executes.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description still usefully notes the ranking and alert content. For a 12-parameter, session-dependent scraping tool the remaining gaps (pagination cost, session caveats) are covered by the schema, so the description is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented by the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose conceptual mapping ('mejores N' -> top, the 'presupuesto bajo / demasiada competencia' filter -> presupuesto_min_usd / max_propuestas) without adding syntax or format detail.

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 names a specific composite verb chain — search recent projects, discard bad ones, deeply analyze the best N, return them ranked — so an agent understands this is an orchestrating pipeline rather than a single lookup. It differentiates from the granular siblings (buscar/ver/evaluar) only implicitly by calling itself a 'flujo completo', but never names them.

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('Flujo completo para el día... Ideal para una revisión diaria'), which tells the agent this is a broad daily-sweep call. However, with three directly related siblings it never explains when to prefer workana_buscar_proyectos or workana_evaluar_proyecto instead, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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