pandape_revisar_candidatos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses not only the returned data structure but also intentional omissions (sensitive data) with rationale, and provides evaluation instructions (cite evidence, note insufficient CV). This is rich behavioral context.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, lists returned data, explains omissions, and ends with evaluation guidance. Though longer than average, every sentence contributes valuable information, and the structure aids scanning.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the structured CV fields in detail, which substitutes for an output schema description. It also provides evaluation criteria instructions and mentions what is intentionally excluded, making it contextually complete for practical use.

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 input schema already documents all 4 parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; it confirms that idVacante selects the vacancy, but that's implied. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches candidates (matches) for a vacancy with structured CV data, enumerating the specific fields returned. It also differentiates itself by noting contact info is in pandape_ver_candidato, distinguishing its scope from siblings.

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 clear context: use for evaluating candidates against criteria, and explicitly directs users to pandape_ver_candidato for contact details, which serves as an alternative. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool beyond that, but enough guidance is given.

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