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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the check targets the public API and reports which version is responding, going slightly beyond the structural annotations.

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?

A single, complete sentence conveys the tool's purpose and output focus with no filler. The key information—availability and version—is immediately accessible.

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 zero-parameter, read-only health check, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what is verified and what information the response conveys, and the annotations cover the operational safety profile.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per baseline this dimension is well-served; there is no parameter information the description needs to compensate for. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

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 names a specific action ('Verifica') and resource ('API pública da ObraAberta'), and specifies what is checked: availability and responding version. This clearly distinguishes it from the data-retrieval siblings like get_project and search_projects.

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 intended use case is clear: a health/status check for the public API, distinct from all sibling tools that fetch or search data. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the zero-parameter health-check nature makes the context self-evident.

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