postular-a-oferta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, quota consumption, and the confirmation gate. It does not say what the call returns on success (application id, status) or what happens on failure, which leaves a gap for a destructive, quota-limited mutation.

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 action, then cost/irreversibility, then the confirmation rule, then the one-at-a-time constraint. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information, though the description is dense enough to read as a block rather than a scannable structure.

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?

Covers the side effects an agent needs before a destructive, quota-limited write: cost, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, and batching of message plus answers. Missing only the return/outcome behavior, which matters more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the exact `confirmacion` format and the meaning of `abierto_a_reubicacion`. The description restates the confirmation format and the required user approval for message/answers but adds no syntax or edge-case 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?

Names a specific verb (envía) and resource (la postulación), and spells out what it submits: the message plus answers in a single request. It is clearly distinct from siblings like proponer-respuestas or preguntas-de-postulacion, which prepare the pieces this tool consumes.

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?

Explicitly states the preconditions (explicit user confirmation for that specific offer, exact format "POSTULAR <id>") and the constraints (one offer at a time, no automatic retries). It also gives the cost trade-off (1 of 5 weekly applications), which lets an agent judge whether to call it now.

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