sysacad_consultar

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by disclosing the auth dependency on stored UTN credentials, the latency characteristic of the first call (session login), and the return shape ('columnas y filas de la tabla del sitio'). No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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 the read-only scope before the data list and the auth caveat. The long enumeration of data types duplicates the enum descriptions, which is mild redundancy, but the sentence otherwise earns its place.

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, the description does commit to a return shape (site table columns and rows) and covers auth, latency, and read-only scope. The return description stays generic, so an agent still doesn't know exact column names, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 enum values are already documented in the schema, so the description's enumeration of the same 16 consulta values adds little beyond redundancy. The legajo parameter is not addressed in the description at all; it is fully handled by the schema.

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 scope ('Consulta de solo lectura en Autogestión') and then enumerates the exact resources covered: exams, plan subjects, schedules, enrollments, academic status, prerequisites. The closing 'No inscribe ni modifica nada' implicitly separates it from the sibling sysacad_inscripcion_estado, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Clear context for use: reading academic data, requires the stored UTN credentials from setup-wizard, first call is slow due to login. It also rules out write use cases ('No inscribe ni modifica nada'). It stops short of naming the sibling enrollment tool as the alternative for inscription queries, so the exclusion is only implied.

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