grado_interrogar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that it evaluates answers against canonical doctrine and codes, but it says nothing about the interaction mechanics or what a response contains, leaving a real gap for an interactive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb, audience, and domain with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it stops short of conveying the extra structural details an interactive tool would benefit from.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns and how the interrogation proceeds, but it does not. Combined with the absence of usage guidance, an agent has insufficient information to invoke this correctly beyond guessing at the defaults.

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 100%, so both parameters (materia, dificultad) are already documented with their allowed values in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (interroga socráticamente) and resource (egresado de derecho) with a clear domain (preguntas de examen de grado en Chile), so the agent can tell this is an interactive quizzing tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like grado_generar_cedula or grado_obtener_flashcards, but the verb-plus-resource pairing is clear enough to distinguish 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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer on its own whether this is for practice, assessment, or exam simulation, and nothing routes it away from grado_obtener_flashcards.

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