detalle-de-oferta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well by disclosing the full contents of the response (salary, equity, visa, interview process, application questions). It omits error behavior for an invalid id and any auth/session requirement, keeping it from a 5.

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 led by the verb, with the payload enumerated compactly. The field list is long but each item conveys what the caller gets back, which is needed since no output schema exists.

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?

Because there is no output schema, enumerating the returned fields in the description is exactly the right compensation and it is done thoroughly. Missing only failure modes (invalid id, access restrictions) to be fully complete.

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 parameter already documents that it accepts a numeric id or a full URL. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 ('Devuelve') and resource ('la oferta completa') and enumerates the returned fields, which makes it distinguishable from buscar-ofertas and detalle-de-empresa. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the single-offer detail lookup to use after a search. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no exclusion of buscar-ofertas, and no note about prerequisites such as being logged in.

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