list_my_badges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds the visibility filter ('solo las insignias visibles'), which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination, but that is implied by parameters.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Lista únicamente las insignias visibles de la cuenta autenticada') without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

The description is too sparse for a paginated list operation. It does not explain the meaning or behavior of the three parameters, nor does it describe the return format or any filtering semantics beyond visibility. With no output schema, an agent lacks essential information to call the tool correctly, especially for course_id.

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% and the description provides no explanation for page, per_page, or course_id. The agent must guess that page and per_page control pagination and course_id filters by course, but nothing in the description confirms this. Since the description should compensate for the absent schema descriptions, this is a clear gap.

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 a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('las insignias visibles de la cuenta autenticada'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_my_grades by focusing on badges for the authenticated account. The scope ('únicamente' / 'only visible') adds precision.

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 context is clear: it is for retrieving the current user's visible badges. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternative tools, but given the tool name and description, the use case is unambiguous. No conflicting tools exist for badges, so a 4 is fair.

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