pandape_ver_candidato

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by stating the output is 'sin filtrar' (unfiltered) and includes contact information (email and phones), which signals sensitivity. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool is read-only (though 'ver' implies it) or describe any side effects, error behavior, or handling of sensitive data. The description adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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 core purpose, and every sentence delivers value. The first sentence states what it does, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant words or filler, making it highly concise and well 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?

This is a simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose and usage context, which is good, but it does not mention what the response contains beyond 'detalle completo' (vague) and contact info. It also omits any edge cases, such as what happens if idMatch is invalid, or the optional parameter behavior. Given the lack of output schema, the description should have provided a bit more about the return structure, but the core information is present.

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 50%: only incluirCuestionarios has a description. The tool description does not explicitly explain idMatch, but the phrase 'de una candidatura' implies it identifies a specific application, which provides minimal context. The description adds no additional meaning for the boolean parameter, but that is already covered in the schema. Given the low description coverage and the lack of parameter details, this is a borderline case, but the implicit reference to the candidate ID keeps it at a 3.

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 that the tool provides 'Detalle COMPLETO y sin filtrar de una candidatura' (complete and unfiltered detail of an application), with a specific resource (candidatura). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'sin filtrar' and 'incluido el contacto', and explicitly contrasts with batch review ('no para revisar en lote'). This makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance: 'Úsalo cuando ya decidiste avanzar con alguien concreto, no para revisar en lote.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when not to, implying an alternative for batch review (likely pandape_revisar_candidatos). This is clear and direct.

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