uned_notas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Publicadas' is the only real disclosure – it implies unpublished grades are excluded – but nothing is said about authentication needs, scope, ordering, or whether this is a read operation. For a tool with zero annotations this is thin.

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?

Five words with no filler, and the key qualifier ('publicadas') is front-loaded. It loses a point for being a bare noun phrase rather than a sentence, which leaves the action itself unstated.

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?

The tool takes no arguments and has an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. What remains missing is the minimal framing an agent needs – that this retrieves the user's published grades and how it relates to the sibling progress/assignment tools – leaving it merely adequate.

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 defines zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 fragment identifies the resource ('calificaciones publicadas') but supplies no verb, so it never states what the tool does with it – fetch, list, summarize? It is only loosely distinguishable from siblings like uned_progreso or uned_entregas, which also deal with academic results.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of prerequisites (login state), no exclusion of the many overlapping siblings, and no hint of when this tool is preferable to uned_progreso or uned_entregas. The 'curso por curso' phrasing hints at a per-course grouping but not at when to call it.

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