pandape_preguntas_eliminatorias

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool lists data without side effects, but it does not disclose behavior around invalid IDs, output format, or read-only guarantees. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not richly transparent.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Lista') and resource, followed by a motivational use case. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what the tool does and why. It could mention response format or error handling, but that is not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 only defines idVacante as an integer with no description. The description references 'en una vacante' (in a vacancy), which implies idVacante is the vacancy identifier. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though not with explicit parameter naming.

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 the tool 'lists the eliminator questions configured in a vacancy' using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like pandape_etapas_vacante (stages) or pandape_revisar_candidatos (review candidates), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides a clear use case: 'useful to know what was filtered before evaluating CVs.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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