s21_check_academic_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does indicate the computation scope (averages, loaded grades, projections). However, it does not state whether the operation is purely read-only, what happens when grades are missing, or what the response shape is.

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 focused sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and a parenthetical that adds meaningful detail without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core calculation but omits the return format, missing-grade behavior, and any usage caveats. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The parenthetical in the description aligns with target_promo_grade and target_regular_grade but adds little beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions and defaults.

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 names a specific action ('Calcula') and resource ('estado académico'), and enumerates the outputs: TP averages, loaded grades, and minimum-grade projections for Promoción Directa or Regularidad. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling getters like s21_get_assignments, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the domain terms: it is the tool to call when a student wants their academic standing or required minimum grades. There are no explicit alternative tools, when-not-to-use conditions, or prerequisites such as requiring graded assignments to be loaded.

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