get_official_exam_dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by mentioning the disambiguation of homonymous plans, a behavioral trait not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential result variations, such as multiple exam sessions per subject, or any permission requirements. With annotations covering the core traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence with the key action front-loaded. It avoids fluff and gets straight to the point. The only minor nit is that it doesn't separate distinct pieces of information, but the brevity is a strength given the limited content.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify return format, error conditions, or the need to obtain exact codes beforehand. Given sibling tools like 'locate_usc_subject_codes' and 'list_official_exam_subjects', the description should guide the agent on the typical workflow, which it does not.

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 0%, so the description has the full burden. It mentions 'código y curso exactos', which likely map to 'subject_codes' and 'academic_year', but does not explain their formats or the optional 'degree_keys' parameter at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the names already imply.

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 clearly states the verb 'obtiene' (gets), the resource 'convocatorias USC' (USC exam calls), and the criteria 'por código y curso exactos' (by exact code and course). It also adds a distinguishing feature: 'distinguiendo planes homónimos' (distinguishing homonymous plans). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_exam_dates', so some ambiguity remains about when each is appropriate.

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 need for exact codes and course, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_exam_dates' or how to obtain the required codes (e.g., via 'locate_usc_subject_codes' or 'list_official_exam_subjects'). No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer prerequisites.

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