get_autogestion_avisos

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds two things they do not: no session is required, and the content is 'externo no confiable' — an explicit trust/prompt-injection warning that matters for a scraper of an open web page. It omits return shape and whether the page is cached or fetched live, so not 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and target, with the URL and content list compactly packed into the first sentence. The trailing trust warning earns its place. The mid-sentence enumeration is slightly dense but every item is a real scope boundary.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must convey what comes back, and the enumerated content categories do that. The one remaining gap is form/structure of the result (single blob of scraped text vs. parsed items) and freshness, which an agent would still want to know before relying on dates.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema carries no burden. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing optional inputs.

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 (lee) and resource (avisos de la portada pública de Autogestión Alumnos) and enumerates the content types (fechas de llamados, plazos de inscripción, certificados, calendario, contactos). It even gives the URL, so the agent knows exactly which surface is scraped. It stops short of naming a sibling such as get_announcements to contrast with, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

The description implies when to reach for it (exam call dates, enrollment deadlines, faculty calendar) and adds a real precondition, 'No requiere sesión', which tells the agent not to gate this behind start_login/session_status. It never explicitly says how it differs from get_announcements or sysacad_consultar, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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