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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the response bundles related indicators alongside the definition — useful but thin for a read tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the examples are compact and earn their place. Slightly dense with quoted examples embedded mid-sentence but nothing superfluous.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does mention the definition plus related indicators. It stops short of describing behavior on an unknown slug or pointing at list_concepts for discovery, which leaves a practical gap for a one-required-param lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies the slug format with an example ('juro-real'). The description's concept examples hint at the semantic scope of a slug but add no syntax or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Devolve a definição') and resource ('conceito econômico do glossário'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_concepts, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Concrete examples ('hiato do produto', 'núcleo de inflação') implicitly show the intended kind of lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no mention that list_concepts is the way to discover valid slugs before calling this tool.

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