preguntas-de-postulacion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it declares the tool read-only ("No envía nada"), flags the session/auth requirement, and describes the state it inspects before applying. It stops short of saying what happens when the session is missing or the offer id is invalid.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and the resource, then packs the return contents and the non-mutating guarantee without a wasted clause.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (applied state, extra data, questionnaire with options and limits). Only error behavior for an invalid offer or expired session is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single `oferta` parameter is already documented there with accepted forms (id, slug, URL). The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 ("Lee") plus the exact resource ("cómo se postula a la oferta") and then enumerates what it returns: applied status, extra-data requirement, and filter questionnaire fields with options and limits. The closing "No envía nada" cleanly separates it from the sibling postular-a-oferta, which does submit.

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?

"requiere sesión" gives an explicit prerequisite, and "No envía nada" implies the read-before-write workflow with postular-a-oferta and proponer-respuestas. It never names those siblings or states an exclusion outright, so the routing is clear but left partly to inference.

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