preguntas-de-postulacion

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 declares the session requirement and explicitly marks the tool as non-mutating ("No envía nada"), and it discloses the concrete return payload including the 5-applications-per-week limit. It doesn't cover error behavior for an invalid offer id, but the read-only and auth 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?

One dense sentence with a parenthetical, front-loaded with the core verb and ending with the key read-only guarantee. Every clause carries distinct information (session, quota, message, questions), though the enumeration is packed tightly.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: auth requirement, return content, quota, and non-mutating status. Only edge-case behavior (invalid or nonexistent offer) is left 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 as a numeric id or workatastartup.com job URL. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ("Lee cómo se postula") and enumerates exactly what is returned: application status, the 5-per-week quota, the mandatory founder message, and the company's questions with their options and limits. This goes well beyond the name "preguntas-de-postulacion," which only mentions questions. The closing "No envía nada" implicitly separates it from the apply sibling.

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?

A precondition is stated ("requiere sesión"), which correctly routes an unauthenticated agent toward iniciar-sesion. The phrase "No envía nada" implies that actually submitting belongs to postular-a-oferta, but that alternative is never named and no explicit when-not condition is given.

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