comparar-perfil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the key thing: it declares read-only behavior explicitly ('No modifica nada') and enumerates the comparison dimensions. It stops short of stating permissions or output/return structure, but the safety profile is clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scoped in a single informative sentence plus a short read-only disclaimer. The parenthetical field list is dense but every item earns its place as a comparison dimension.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys what it compares and that it returns a list of corrections. It is nearly complete; only the exact return shape and any auth/data-freshness expectations are missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline applies (4). The description does not need to document parameter meaning and correctly stays focused on behavior.

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?

Specific verb 'compara' with two clear resources (candidate profile vs master profile) and an enumerated set of fields (años, ciudad, remoto, enlaces, fechas, habilidades). An agent can tell this is a diff/audit tool distinct from siblings like ver-mi-perfil or construir-perfil-maestro, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings it is not.

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?

'lista lo que conviene corregir' implies the use case (find discrepancies to fix), but there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as ver-perfil-maestro or construir-perfil-maestro.

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