search_exam_dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it searches official USC pages/PDFs and preserves URL/page, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose how results are returned, pagination, or any rate limits.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it is not penalized for verbosity, only for under-specification.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of results, snippets, URLs). It mentions 'conserva URL/página' but not the structure of the output. It also lacks parameter usage context, making it incomplete for a search tool with three parameters.

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 information about the three parameters (query, source_urls, max_documents). It does not explain what 'query' should contain, how to specify source_urls, or what max_documents controls. With zero parameter guidance, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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 ('busca' – searches) and resource ('evidencias de fechas en páginas/PDF oficiales USC' – date evidence in official USC pages/PDFs), and mentions it preserves URL/page. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_exam_sources by indicating it searches within content, not just lists sources. However, it does not explicitly say 'exam dates' but the name implies it.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_exam_sources or any other sibling, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., should source_urls be populated from list_exam_sources first). Usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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