Resumen Semanal del Alumno

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that fetching happens 'en paralelo'; it omits what an agent most needs for a multi-source aggregator — partial-failure behavior, whether missing sources cause errors, and whether auth must already be established via uca_iniciar_sesion.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the resource list is packed efficiently. The 'Tool Compuesta:' prefix is slightly meta rather than user-facing, but it does signal the composite nature immediately.

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 composite tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch the shape of the aggregated response or how sections map to sources; it only lists inputs to the aggregation. Adequate to select the tool, but thin for interpreting what comes back.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'carrera'. The description adds nothing about how that parameter narrows the aggregated sources, which is the baseline 3 case where the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Trae en paralelo') plus an explicit enumeration of the five resources aggregated (tareas de EVA, avisos, cursada/inasistencias, clases de hoy, inscripciones a finales). That makes it distinguishable from the granular siblings it bundles, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Only implied guidance: the title 'Resumen Semanal' suggests a weekly overview use case, but the description does not say when to prefer this composite over the individual eva_/guarani_ tools or what the trade-offs are (e.g., cost vs. granularity). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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