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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds that the data is aggregated by day and route and restricted to a 366-day window, which is useful but does not reveal other behaviors like pagination, date boundaries, or timezone handling.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that packs the essential information: subject, aggregation, and period limitation. No redundant words or filler.

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 report-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'conta conectada' specifically refers to and does not hint at the nature of the returned data (e.g., units, structure). Still, it is reasonably complete for a lightweight query.

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?

The parameter descriptions only label 'inicio' and 'fim' as start and end dates. The tool description adds a significant constraint: the period must be within a maximum 366-day window. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the basic schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting usage of the connected account aggregated by day and route. The phrase 'Uso da CONTA conectada' distinguishes it from sibling tools like carpedia_consumo (vehicle consumption), and 'agregado por dia e rota' specifies the aggregation level.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It only mentions a constraint (maximum 366-day window) but does not state scenarios for use or contrast with sibling tools such as carpedia_consumo or carpedia_resumo.

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