list_official_exam_subjects

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 only the notion of an 'exact academic year' but does not disclose filtering behavior, defaults for null parameters, or any other operational traits. Minimal additional value beyond annotations.

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, which is concise and front-loaded with a verb, but its vagueness means the brevity is not an asset. It could be longer if it added clarity.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It does not specify what exactly is returned, how filtering works, or what happens when parameters are null. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly.

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 must compensate. It indirectly references academic_year via 'curso académico exacto' but completely omits any meaningful explanation of degree_keys, leaving its role and format unclear.

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 states a verb ('Descubre') and a resource ('códigos y fichas desde los planes oficiales'), but it does not explicitly mention 'exam subjects', relying on the tool name. It is not a tautology, but the ambiguity prevents full clarity and differentiation from siblings like list_official_exam_degrees.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description offers no help in selecting this tool over its many siblings.

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