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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds that the set is 'curado' (a fixed, curated catalog), which is mild reinforcement of the closed-world hint rather than new behavior. It says nothing about ordering or result volume.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the resource and its fields, the second gives use. Nothing is redundant and the definition is front-loaded.

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 return-shape burden and does list the key returned fields (anos de início e fim, abrangência, resumo). That is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it; only ordering/volume details are absent, which is minor for a zero-param catalog.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is moot at zero params.

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 and resource ('Lista o catálogo curado de crises econômicas') plus scope ('brasileiras e globais'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings, though none of the listed sibling names overlap this domain.

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?

'Útil para contextualizar quedas nas séries' gives a concrete use context that tells the agent when this catalog is relevant. No exclusions or explicit alternatives are offered, keeping it short of a 5.

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