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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: vagas are 'mescladas com matrículas reais', signaling computed/merged data, and it discloses the full response field set. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, which is acceptable for a single-resource read.

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 dense sentence front-loads the COMPLETO scope and lists the returned fields efficiently, followed by a short routing instruction. The field list is long but every item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect. Minor verbosity in enumerating ten-plus fields.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the slug prerequisite, and the shape of the returned detail including the non-obvious merged vacancies field. An output schema is absent, yet the description effectively enumerates the return shape, which compensates. It lacks any note on error or not-found behavior.

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 slug parameter is documented with format (kebab-case) and examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the slug requirement by pointing to list_courses, adding routing value rather than parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the 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 (retorna detalhe) and resource (curso), and enumerates the exact fields returned (descrição, módulos, professores, preço, parcelamento, etc.), so the agent knows precisely what this tool produces. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_courses and get_teacher.

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 routes the agent to list_courses to discover the slug, which is a clear usage precondition. It does not name a when-not condition or alternative for fetching a course by another key, but the slug prerequisite is well covered.

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