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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the structure of the returned data and imposing an attribution obligation ('Cite a url_canonica e a fonte_url de cada dado'), which is real behavioral context. It does not discuss failure modes for an unknown slug, so not a 5.

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 sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second covers when to use it plus the citation rule. Every clause is informative, though the field enumeration is dense and the citation instruction is slightly buried at the end.

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 returns and does so thoroughly, listing each category of data included. Combined with the precondition on buscar_softwares and the slug source, an agent has everything needed to call and use it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already explains that the slug comes from search or the softoteca.com.br/software/{slug} URL. The description merely echoes that the slug must be known, adding no syntax, format, or validation detail. Baseline 3.

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 ('Devolve a ficha técnica completa de um software do catálogo') and enumerates the exact payload (campos com origem e URL, planos e preços, integrações, conformidade, fornecedor, categorias). It also names the sibling it follows (buscar_softwares), so an agent can separate it from comparar_softwares or alternativas without opening 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 explicit sequencing ('Use depois de buscar_softwares, ou quando a pessoa citar um software e o slug for conhecido'), which tells the agent the precondition and the trigger condition. No when-not guidance or contrast with comparar_softwares/alternativas, so it stops short of full routing coverage.

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