perfil_examen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only lookup ('Consúltalo') and describes what the result includes, including that answers are source-backed and may contain unconfirmed points. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but this is a low-risk read operation.

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 two tight sentences: the first enumerates the returned content and source; the second gives the ideal invocation moment. No filler or repeated schema 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?

For a one-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates what will be returned and when to call. It leaves only minor unknowns such as error behavior when no profile exists, which are low-stakes for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'universidad' parameter, which already documents its default. The description only reinforces that the profile is for a university and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource: a university's final-exam profile, and lists its relevant aspects (parts, duration, committee, grading, committee style, open points, and source). It signals a lookup via 'Consúltalo', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling guardar_perfil_examen.

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?

It provides an explicit usage context: consult before preparing a mock exam or deciding what question types to ask. It does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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