grado_obtener_flashcards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the lower bar applies. The description adds that the payload is flashcards on definitions and deadlines, but says nothing about filter behavior when area/tipo are omitted (both are optional) or about the open-world fetch implied by openWorldHint.

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 with no filler or redundancy. The domain jargon makes it dense, but every word carries meaning and nothing is wasted.

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 simple, two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is adequate. It nonetheless omits two things an agent needs: what happens when both filters are omitted, and how this differs from the sibling grado_ tools.

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%: both parameters carry descriptions and example values, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 baseline applies. The description's mention of 'definiciones' and 'plazos' loosely echoes the tipo values but adds no format, syntax, or default behavior 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?

States a specific verb (Obtiene) and resource (fichas mnemotécnicas) with a qualifying scope ('definiciones sacramentales y plazos fatales procesales para el examen de grado'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings grado_interrogar or grado_generar_cedula, which live in the same exam-prep family.

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 only implies usage through the phrase 'para el examen de grado'; there is no statement of when to pick this over grado_interrogar or grado_generar_cedula, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. An agent must guess at the routing.

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