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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly states the tool does not receive or analyze the uploaded file, preventing an agent from assuming it validates artwork.

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 sentences: the first enumerates the return content, the second states the non-capability and the usage trigger. Nothing is redundant and the informative part is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned categories (formatos, resolução, cores, sangria) and the delivery instructions, plus a usage trigger. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 single optional 'produto' slug is already documented as yielding product-specific tips. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Retorna os requisitos técnicos do arquivo de impressão') and enumerates the returned content (formatos, resolução, cores, sangria). The explicit negation 'Não recebe nem analisa o arquivo: só informa as regras' cleanly separates it from any file-processing sibling.

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?

'Use antes de criar_pedido para orientar o cliente' gives a concrete trigger and names the sibling it precedes, which is strong routing guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not (e.g., what to do after the order exists), so it stops short of a full 5.

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