pandape_descargar_cv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the cookie-based session requirement (PANDAPE_CV_URL + PANDAPE_COOKIE(_FILE)), states that the official API does not expose CVs, and explains the return value (local path). This gives the agent sufficient context about authentication and operational constraints.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, required environment/limitation, and use cases. No redundant wording, front-loaded with the main action. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (custom auth, unofficial behavior, specific output), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, limitations, when to use vs. alternatives, and return format. Even without an output schema, the description states the local path return.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but it doesn't need to; the schema already explains idMatch, idCandidato, and nombreArchivo. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not add semantic value beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Descarga el documento del CV (PDF) de un candidato' (Downloads the CV PDF document of a candidate). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the official API doesn't expose the CV and that pandape_revisar_candidatos provides structured CV data, while this tool gets the original document.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Para clasificar candidatos por criterios normalmente NO lo necesitas' (for criteria-based screening you normally don't need it) and 'Usa esto cuando necesites el documento original' (use this when you need the original document). It also names the alternative tool pandape_revisar_candidatos.

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