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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the section, its assertions, references, and context, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose auth requirements for this specific read, output format, or rate-limit behavior. A 3 is appropriate given annotations carry the safety disclosure.

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 two tightly written sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the read purpose and then appends the necessary save/check workflow, so every clause earns its place.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description usefully lists the read content (section, assertions, references, context) and situates the tool in a larger workflow. It does not explain output structure or how limiteContextoChars affects returns, but these gaps are minor for a read-only preparation tool whose annotations already cover safety.

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%, so minutaId, secaoId, and limiteContextoChars are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Lê') and resource ('uma seção da minuta canônica, suas afirmações, referências e contexto') and clearly distinguishes this read/preparation step from sibling tools by naming the save tool (salvar_secao_minuta) and the approval-check tool (checar_peca). An agent can tell this tool is for reading a draft section and its associated material, not for saving or approving.

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 gives a clear workflow: read the section to draft the alteration, save with salvar_secao_minuta, and check the recomposed document with checar_peca before approving. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other read-oriented siblings like dados_para_peca, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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