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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that overdue deadlines are included and that three distinct event categories are merged into one response. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or volume limits, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: content scope first, then usage triggers, then exclusions with alternatives. The most decision-relevant information (what it returns and the sibling exclusions) 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the aggregated categories and noting overdue inclusion. What is missing is the response shape or ordering of the merged agenda items, but for a single-optional-param read tool this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the sole parameter 'dias' is fully documented in the schema with default and max. The description only implies a forward-looking window ('próximos dias') and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (office agenda) and exactly what it aggregates: open deadlines including overdue, hearings, and meetings for upcoming days. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, ultimas_movimentacoes (history) and listar_prazos (single process), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers in the user's own phrasing ("o que eu tenho hoje/esta semana?", "o que vence?", "quais as próximas audiências?") and explicit when-not-to-use cases with named alternatives. This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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