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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns ingestion status and coverage (pages processed), a light behavioral detail beyond annotations, but with no output schema it could say more about the shape of the result.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first defines the function, the second gives the sequencing rule. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description hints at the return content (ingestion status, pages available) and gives clear usage timing. It is nearly complete, though without an output schema it could formalize what fields the status response contains.

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 single parameter processoId is fully documented in the schema as a UUID, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or semantics for the ID beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Consulte') and resource ('status de ingestão e cobertura ... de um processo'), making clear it reports ingestion/coverage rather than performing analysis. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like analisar_processo or resumo_processo, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use antes de qualquer análise' gives explicit timing guidance for when to invoke this tool, which is genuinely helpful for sequencing. It lacks any when-not or named-alternative routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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