mis-postulaciones

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 implies a per-user read ("tus") but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether results are paginated, how many records per page, ordering, or what the status field contains. Only "con su estado" gives any behavioral hint.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with zero padding; no wasted words. It is perhaps under-sized for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented, but nothing in it is dispensable.

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 simple list tool this is borderline: no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least state pagination behavior, result shape/ordering, and the login requirement. It provides none of these, leaving the single parameter entirely opaque.

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?

There is one parameter ("pagina") with 0% schema description coverage — undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description says nothing about paging, page size, or defaults, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 ("Lista") and a specific resource ("tus procesos (postulaciones)"), clarified with the Spanish/English gloss and the Magneto context. It is inferably distinct from listar-mis-cv, though it never names that sibling to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as listar-mis-cv (CVs) or detalle-de-oferta, and no note about prerequisites like being logged in. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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