Detalle del módulo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return composition (module editable data plus its evaluations, exams and scenarios) and the audience scope ('Equipo del aula'), which is material since no output schema exists.

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?

One compact sentence with a bracketed qualifier up front, no filler or repetition of the title. The return payload is stated parenthetically so the reader gets it immediately, though the bracketed tag slightly delays the core verb.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the gist of what comes back, but 'datos editables' is vague — it does not say which module fields are returned or whether lessons are included. Adequate to call correctly, not complete enough to predict the response shape.

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%, with both required UUIDs (classroom_id 'Aula', module_id 'Módulo') documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Devuelve los datos editables de un módulo') and even names the nested payload ('sus evaluaciones (exámenes y escenarios)'), so an agent knows it retrieves a module with its exams and scenarios. It does not differentiate itself from nearby getters such as get_course_outline, get_lesson or get_exam, which keeps it below a 5.

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 '[Equipo del aula · solo lectura]' tag implies a read operation for classroom staff, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of get_course_outline, get_lesson, get_exam or get_scenario. With dozens of sibling retrieval and mutation tools, the agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.

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