pandape_web_cv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses cookies/web session, reads the full CV as text, and that personal data is involved and should be treated as sensitive. It also specifies evaluation behavior (cite evidence, state when CV is insufficient), which adds useful context beyond a bare read operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, evaluation guidance, and data-sensitivity reminder. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it says what is returned (CV as text), when to use it, and how to handle the content. It does not mention error cases like a missing CV, but given the simplicity, the provided context is sufficient.

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%: the single idMatch parameter is already described as 'idMatch de pandape_web_candidatos'. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Lee el CV COMPLETO de un candidato como texto' (read the complete CV as text). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pandape_web_descargar_cv by specifying web-session usage and by positioning itself as the route for reviewing candidates without API credentials.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Es la vía para revisar candidatos por criterios cuando aún no tienes credenciales de API' (it's the way to review candidates by criteria when you don't yet have API credentials). It does not name specific alternative tools, but the condition is clear and distinguishes it from API-based workflows.

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