responder-cuestionario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral safeguard — a confirmation gate whose token must match 'CUESTIONARIO <id>' and answers must be user-approved — but says nothing about whether submission is final/irreversible, whether it can be retried, or what happens to the application state afterward.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the triggering state, with the safety constraint second. No filler, though the confirmation-format sentence duplicates schema text rather than using the space for something new.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the confirmation gate but leaves the agent guessing about the result (success shape, resulting application state) and about retry/already-submitted behavior.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint on 'respuestas' (provenance/confirmation by the user) that the schema does not state, but the 'confirmacion' format it repeats verbatim is already in the schema, and 'id' and 'url' are not mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Envía el cuestionario de filtro') and anchors it to a concrete trigger state ('requiere_cuestionario') that follows postular-a-oferta. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling proponer-respuestas, which handles the drafting/confirmation side, so the boundary between them is left implicit.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition (only after applying, when state is 'requiere_cuestionario') plus a hard prerequisite: answers must come from the user or be confirmed by them. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (proponer-respuestas) or stating what to do if the questionnaire was already sent.

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