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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by restricting to moderated public ratings and stating no personal author data is returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or response details.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a relevant privacy guarantee. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only paginated tool with annotations covering safety, the description conveys what the agent gets (summary and public ratings) and a key constraint (no personal data). It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but those are minor given the schema defaults and absence of an output schema.

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 only 33%: page and limit have no descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters, though id is already described as slug or UUID in the schema. Page/limit are self-explanatory from their names, but the description adds no semantic value for them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('resumo e avaliações públicas já moderadas de um empreendimento'), clearly indicating the tool returns public moderated ratings for a project. It is clear but does not name or contrast sibling tools like get_project or get_project_timeline, so it misses the top score.

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?

No explicit guidance states when to use this tool instead of get_project or other project-related tools. The description implies it is for public rating summaries, but gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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