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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds the valuable behavioral detail that only evidence approved in moderation appears in the timeline, and that it is public. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the data scope.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a compact list of returned data. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with two parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the returned content (stages, percentages, moderated evidence). It does not mention sorting behavior, but that is already covered by the order parameter in the schema. Overall, an agent can call this correctly with the given information.

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 50%: the id parameter has a clear description, and order has an enum (asc/desc) with a default, making it self-explanatory. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema itself is adequate. With coverage at 50% (not high, not low), a neutral 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?

The description states a specific verb (consulta) and resource (linha do tempo pública de um empreendimento), and enumerates the contents (etapas, percentuais e evidências aprovadas na moderação). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_project, which returns broader project data, by specifying the timeline scope.

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 implies usage: if you need the public timeline of a project, this tool is the one. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., get_project for general details). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or direct comparisons.

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