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

Annotations already declare a write (readOnlyHint=false) that is idempotent and destructive; the description adds real value by explaining the destructive aspect is mitigated ("o texto anterior vai para o histórico") and disclosing the 20k character limit. It does not describe response/confirmation behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 front-loaded sentences with the core action first and supporting detail after; efficient overall, though the character limit is redundantly restated from the schema.

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 adequately conveys the effect of a successful call (summary saved for office-wide reuse, prior text archived). For a two-param write tool this is essentially complete, with only minor gaps around confirmation/return 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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats the 20k limit already stated there. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is 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 verb and resource ("Grava o resumo que você compilou do processo") and clarifies the effect on the read counterpart ("o próximo 'resuma o processo' volta instantâneo"), implicitly distinguishing it from the read-only sibling resumo_processo. The differentiation is functional rather than naming the sibling outright, so it falls just short of 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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions: "Use no fim de uma leitura longa ou quando o advogado pedir para registrar o estado do caso." It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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