list_official_exam_degrees

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of output format, ordering, filtering, or any caveats. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add value beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and does not effectively front-load the core meaning. The sentence is vague ('ediciones y crosswalks') and fails to convey what the tool actually does with sufficient clarity. It is concise but not informative.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters) and the presence of a clear tool name, the description should be self-sufficient, but it is not. The terms 'ediciones y crosswalks institucionales' are domain-specific and unexplained. The description does not clarify what the tool returns, how it relates to sibling tools, or any important caveats. For a simple list tool, this is inadequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is effectively empty (100% coverage trivially). Since there are no parameters to document, the description has nothing to add here. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 uses the verb 'Lista' (List) and names a resource ('ediciones y crosswalks institucionales'), but these terms are opaque and not explained. It vaguely relates to 'resolver exámenes' but does not clearly state what is being listed (degrees? editions? crosswalks?) or how this differs from siblings like list_usc_degrees or list_official_exam_subjects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or how it relates to the many sibling list tools (e.g., list_exam_sources, list_usc_degrees). An agent cannot determine the appropriate context from the description alone.

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