list_usc_degrees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the degrees are 'enlazadas por el catálogo público oficial USC,' clarifying the data source, but provides no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering) beyond what annotations already cover.

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 with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description tells the agent exactly what is returned (a list of current degrees from the official public USC catalog). It doesn't specify the return format, but given the simplicity and openWorldHint, this is likely sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the schema is essentially empty. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly omits any.

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 specific verb (list), a clear resource ('titulaciones' / degrees), and the source ('catálogo público oficial USC'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_official_exam_degrees' that target different data sets, even though the alternative isn't named explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, but the context is clear for a simple listing tool. An agent can infer it's meant for retrieving the official degree list, but there's no mention of when to choose it over related tools like degree timetables or exam degrees.

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