detalle-de-oferta

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 usefully discloses the returned content and flags that 'modalidad' is inferred rather than raw data, which is real value-add. It says nothing about behavior when the offer is not found, whether the data is live or cached, or any auth requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a concrete field list and zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by enumerating the fields. Only error/not-found behavior and freshness are missing, which are minor for a single-offer read tool.

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% and the single 'oferta' parameter is documented in detail (id, slug, or URL, as returned by buscar-ofertas). The description itself adds no parameter information, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (devuelve la descripción completa de una oferta) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can tell it fetches full detail for one offer. It does not name the sibling it complements (buscar-ofertas), which the schema does instead, so the differentiation is only 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion; the implication is that this is the follow-up to a search result for a single offer, reinforced only by the word 'completa'. Usage is inferable but never stated.

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