Explicar pregunta

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it only works after a question has been corrected and it returns both the answer key and the full explanation. It does not describe what happens when the precondition is not met beyond saying it does not work.

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?

The definition is two short sentences with no waste. The key constraint is front-loaded in the first sentence and the negative condition follows immediately, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned and the key eligibility condition without needing to explain output structure.

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%, and the schema already defines pregunta_id as 'El pregunta_id que aparece en la corrección'. The description reinforces that the question must come from a correction, but adds little parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Devuelve la clave y la explicación completa de una pregunta'. It also scopes the tool to questions the student already corrected in a mock exam, which differentiates it from unanswered-question flows. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as buscar_preguntas or corregir_simulacro.

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?

It gives both a positive usage condition ('una pregunta que el alumno YA corrigió en un simulacro') and a negative condition ('No sirve para preguntas que todavía no respondió'). The guidance is clear, but it does not name alternative tools to use when the condition is not met.

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