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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: long descriptions arrive truncated, results are paginated via proximoCursor with a one-hour TTL note (reinforced by schema), and the response includes a total. It stops short of describing result ordering guarantees or rate behavior, keeping it at a solid 4.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage examples, then the cross-reference to detalhe_processo, then response/pagination notes. Every sentence carries information, though it is somewhat dense and could be split more cleanly; no filler is present.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return shape (total, proximoCursor, per-event teorDisponivel/teorEventoId) and how to consume it. Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results correctly.

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 defaults (7 days, max 90, page size 20/50) and cursor semantics are already documented in schema. The description reinforces the cursor 'call again with cursor equal to it' flow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 concrete verb+resource: 'O que aconteceu no acervo... nos últimos N dias: andamentos em ordem cronológica inversa, com o processo de cada um.' The scope (time-windowed, reverse-chronological, optionally scoped to one processo) is explicit and clearly distinct from siblings like linha_do_tempo or detalhe_processo.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases ('alguma novidade?', 'o que movimentou esta semana?') and explicitly routes the agent to detalhe_processo(processoId, teorEventoId) when full event content is needed. Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated.

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