MIDE 360 - formación en analítica digital y marketing basado en datos

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world search operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the sources searched and describing the return format: short snippets with title, excerpt, and link to an exact YouTube minute or webpage.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with the search scope front-loaded and the return format following immediately. Every phrase contributes useful information, and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains sources and return values. It could be slightly more complete by stating result limits or ranking behavior, but nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single "pregunta" parameter is already fully documented as a natural-language query with length limits. The description adds no additional meaning about query syntax, ranking, or filtering beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ("Busca") and specific resources ("vídeos gratuitos de MIDE" and "web de Mide360"). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools.

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?

The description implies the tool is for searching content across MIDE videos and the Mide360 website, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It also does not mention when to prefer the sibling tools recomendar_formacion or ruta_de_aprendizaje.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description usefully discloses the return shape (one main course with URL plus up to two alternatives), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say what happens when no relevant course exists or whether results are ranked by score.

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 zero filler that leads directly with the returned resource. It is efficient, though minimal enough that a short clause about fallback behavior would have been worth the space.

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-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present, including a partial description of the return value. It remains incomplete on no-match behavior and on how it differs from the search and learning-path siblings.

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 'tema' parameter is well documented with examples in the schema. The description only restates that the input is a topic, adding no constraints or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource: returns the most relevant MIDE/Mide360 course for a topic, plus its URL and up to two alternatives. The recommendation framing is distinguishable from buscar_contenido_mide and ruta_de_aprendizaje, though it never names them explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools (buscar_contenido_mide, ruta_de_aprendizaje) that an agent could pick instead. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'para un tema'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the return is ordered from basic to advanced, each item carries a link, an intended audience, and a justification, and a degraded fallback response is defined for unknown topics. It does not describe result size or whether the path is truncated, which is a minor residual gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to use it, then the edge case. No filler, and the fallback clause is placed after the primary behavior where it belongs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so concretely (ordered videos, link, audience, placement rationale) while also covering the no-match fallback. For a single-parameter read tool this is sufficient to call it correctly.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'tema' accepts a topic string or a path id. The description reinforces that the input is a topic but adds no new syntax, normalization, or matching behavior for how loosely related topics are resolved to a path. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Devuelve una ruta de aprendizaje de MIDE para un tema') and even characterizes the payload: an ordered video itinerary with link, target audience, and the rationale for each position. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings buscar_contenido_mide and recomendar_formacion, so the differentiation is only implicit in the 'learn a topic / where to start' framing.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Úsala cuando quieran aprender un tema o pregunten por dónde empezar', and states a fallback when no clear path exists (returns the list of available paths). What is missing is a negative case or a named alternative for when the user wants a single piece of content or a different kind of recommendation, which is where the sibling tools would apply.

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