proponer-respuestas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two important traits — no invented data and no sending — and explains the classification labels, but it does not clarify authentication needs, persistence, or the exact response shape.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It establishes the action, source, classification, and safety constraint in one pass.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and safety constraints well. It is slightly incomplete on prerequisites and how it relates to preguntas-de-postulacion, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'oferta' is fully documented in the schema, including id/slug/URL and its relation to buscar-ofertas. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for 100% schema coverage.

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 — proposing answers to the filter questionnaire — and names the source (master profile) plus the classification output. The final clause 'nunca envía nada' implicitly separates it from sibling postular-a-oferta, so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not do.

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?

Usage is implied: it is for answering the filter questionnaire from the master profile and explicitly not for sending anything. However, it never states when to call it versus preguntas-de-postulacion or postular-a-oferta, nor does it spell out prerequisites such as having a master profile.

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