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.