buscar-ofertas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: optional auth with a session-dependent extra field, and the important caveat that Magneto does not publish modality per offer (the filter is portal-level, inferred from text in detail). It omits rate limits and pagination limits, keeping it below a 5, but the modality gotcha is valuable 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?

Three dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then auth behavior, then the modality caveat. No filler, though the modality sentence is syntactically dense enough to require a second read.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should sketch what a search result looks like and mention pagination (pagina/por_pagina exist but are unexplained). It covers purpose and one data caveat well but leaves the result shape undiscussed, which matters given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so half the parameters (orden, pagina, por_pagina, contrato) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description partially compensates for modalidad by explaining that the filter is portal-derived and defaults from profile preferences, but adds nothing for the other four parameters.

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+resource+site: "Busca ofertas en Magneto (magneto365.com, Colombia)", which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like mis-postulaciones or detalle-de-oferta. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, but the search purpose is 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?

The description implies usage context ("Funciona sin sesión; con sesión indica si ya te postulaste") which tells an agent it can be called unauthenticated and what extra info login unlocks. However it never states when to use this vs detalle-de-oferta, postular-a-oferta, or evaluar-encaje, and gives no exclusions.

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