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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: prices are returned in the supplier's original currency with no conversion, each field carries origin and source URL, and the agent is instructed to cite url_canonica and fonte_url — a non-obvious output obligation.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then how to trigger it, then the citation obligation — a sensible order. The field enumeration is dense but each item tells the agent what to expect, so little is wasted; the currency disclaimer earns its place.

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 compensates by listing the payload contents and the no-conversion currency rule, plus the citation requirement. For a single-parameter read-only lookup, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and report results.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is already well documented, including the softoteca.com.br/software/{slug} format. The description only echoes that a known slug is required, adding no new semantics about format or constraints; baseline 3 applies.

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 even enumerates the returned fields — planos e preços, integrações, conformidade, fornecedor, categorias. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like buscar_softwares or comparar_softwares without opening any 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') and an alternative trigger ('quando a pessoa citar um software e o slug for conhecido'). It does not explicitly rule out cases where comparar_softwares or alternativas would be the better choice, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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