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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description usefully adds the sort order (newest to oldest) and the returned fields (slug, title, summary), but does not discuss pagination limits or total counts beyond what the schema provides.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the filter semantics following immediately. Slight redundancy in restating the indicator filter, but no significant waste.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, filtering and returned fields adequately. Minor gaps around pagination output are acceptable because the schema documents page and pageSize.

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 all three parameters are documented there. The description adds only marginal meaning for indicatorCode by clarifying that it restricts results to what the site has already published about a given indicator; page and pageSize are left entirely to 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Lista as pílulas publicadas, posts curtos e diários') and adds scope plus ordering. It is clearly a list operation distinct from the singular sibling get_daily_post, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

It explains what indicatorCode does ('restringe a lista ao que o site já escreveu sobre um indicador'), which implies when to use the filter. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_daily_post or search.

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