sysacad_inscripcion_estado

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real value beyond them: a latency warning ('puede tardar hasta un minuto' due to multiple waiting screens) and a state-dependent return shape (aviso when closed, subject list when open). It does not cover failure modes when the site is unreachable, which keeps it from 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, fully front-loaded: purpose and return states first, the read-only constraint second, the latency caveat last. No redundant or filler text.

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, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it answers, the two possible return shapes, the no-side-effect guarantee, and the expected wait time. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 optional legajo parameter is fully documented in the schema (format pattern and default behavior). The description adds nothing about legajo, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but means no credit above baseline.

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: reports whether Autogestión course enrollment is open, and describes what it returns in each state (aviso vs. materias). It clearly separates itself from write operations, though it never names a sibling such as sysacad_consultar or get_autogestion_avisos as the alternative for related queries.

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?

'Solo mira: nunca se inscribe ni elige comisiones' gives a clear usage boundary by ruling out enrollment/commission selection, so an agent knows not to reach for this tool expecting a mutation. It still lacks explicit routing to the tool that *does* perform enrollment or to sibling consult tools when a different Autogestión query is needed.

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