Próximos vencimientos

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses behavior: listing all subjects' assignments and quizzes ordered by date, plus fallback. It does not mention potential limitations like pagination, but for a simple list it is transparent enough.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: the first states purpose and usage, the second provides fallback behavior. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded with core information.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its behavior, making it complete for an agent.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (dias), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's definition; it does not mention the parameter at all.

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 specific verbs ('Lista qué se vence') and resources (entregas de trabajos prácticos y cierres de cuestionarios), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like listar_materias or ver_trabajos_practicos, which focus on other aspects.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool (when asked about pending tasks, due this week, or study organization) and provides fallback behavior (informs next upcoming deadline if none in range), offering clear guidance on usage.

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