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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the state machine (na_fila, emitindo, confirmando, autorizada, recusada, incerta) and what each carries (numero/chave_acesso on success, motivo on rejection). That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't say what 'incerta' means operationally or whether the poll can time out.

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 dense sentences: the state enumeration is front-loaded and the polling instruction follows. No filler, and the return-relevant fields are named inline rather than in a separate list.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so via the state enumeration plus the fields returned in each terminal state. The mention of proxima_consulta_ms covers polling cadence. It only misses guidance for the 'incerta' outcome.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage (UUID, 36 chars) does all the work; the description adds nothing about where pedido_id comes from (presumably emitir_nota). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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+resource ('Estado de um pedido de emissão') and enumerates the possible states, so the agent knows this is a status lookup for a previously created emission request. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like acompanhar_operacao or status, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Explicitly says to call again after proxima_consulta_ms while the state is not terminal, which is real usage guidance for a polling tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g. acompanhar_operacao vs status), so 4 rather than 5.

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