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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that it is non-mutating ('não altera o estado social') and does not fabricate identity or presence – useful safety context. However it says nothing about filtering behavior, the result shape, or what 'gaps/next capabilities' actually returns.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the scope, then the exclusions. No filler, though the disclaimer sentence is somewhat abstract.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented enum parameters mean the description should do more. It conveys the thematic scope of the map but leaves filtering semantics and return format entirely unaddressed.

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 0% and both parameters are enums with no schema documentation, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'necessidades' and availability vaguely but never explains what the 14 'need' values or the 'implemented'/'partial' status filter do.

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 ('Lê') and a well-defined resource: the complete map of operational needs, spaces, guarantees, gaps and upcoming capabilities. It distinguishes itself from the creation/social siblings by explicitly disclaiming creation and identity behavior, though it never names a sibling 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?

Usage is only implied – an agent infers it should call this to survey what exists before acting. The negatives ('não cria identidade, presença ou publicação') hint that other tools handle creation, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated.

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