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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: responses over 40k characters return a null payload with the beginning of the JSON in payloadPreview. Combined with the hasDetails precondition, this is exactly the operational context an agent needs.

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?

Three dense sentences, no filler: what it returns, when it applies, and the truncation edge case. The precondition and content description are front-loaded before the caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the payload contents and the payloadPreview fallback, so return shape is clear. For a single-resource read tool with a documented precondition and truncation rule, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so code/from/to formats are already documented. The description does not clarify whether from/to scope or filter the panel contents, which is the one semantic question an agent might have; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (payload rico do painel de um indicador) with the exact content returned (KPIs, aberturas, resultados de modelo) and maps it to the underlying endpoint. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_indicator_series or get_indicator_latest without needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: only for indicators with hasDetails=true, which is the key gate for calling this tool. It does not name the alternative to use for indicators without details (e.g. get_indicator_series), so the agent must infer the fallback, keeping it below a 5.

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