Mi progreso

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real substance on top by disclosing the returned dimensions and the explicit '2+ respuestas' threshold that defines a weak topic. It does not explain what happens when the student has zero corrected simulacros or how the list of recent simulacros is bounded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: each clause enumerates a distinct dimension of the summary, and the usage hint is appended last. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present and a fully described optional parameter, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call it, including the weak-topic threshold. The only gap is edge-case behavior (empty progress history), which is minor for a read-only summary tool.

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% and the single optional 'curso' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Solo ese curso; sin él, todos'. The description adds nothing about the filter, so this is the baseline 3 where the schema does the work.

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 ('Resume') and resource ('simulacros corregidos del alumno') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: global percentage, per-specialty performance, weak topics, recently failed topics, and latest simulacros. It is clearly distinguishable from estadisticas_banco (bank-level stats) by its per-student scope, though the description never names the sibling it differs from.

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?

'Úsalo para recomendar qué repasar' gives a concrete use context that tells an agent when this tool is the right pick. It offers no when-not conditions and names no alternatives (e.g., estadisticas_banco for aggregate difficulty data), so routing among siblings is still partly inferred.

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