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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond annotations: data comes from post-moderation published content, indicators are reported for 12 months and full history, and any indicator with fewer than 5 data points returns null (insufficient data). This null-threshold rule is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to interpret results.

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-loaded with the resource and its indicator list, then the null rule, then the usage trigger — a logical order with no filler. The field enumeration is long but earns its place by defining the exact return scope in the absence of an output schema.

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 enumerates the returned indicators and the time windows, and explains the null-condition interpretation. Combined with fully-covered input schema and complete annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single required 'slug' parameter whose format (search result or softoteca.com.br/software/{slug}) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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+resource (obter_reputacao) and enumerates exactly what the indicator set contains: nota geral, uso verificado, voltaria a usar, taxa de resposta, tempo da primeira resposta, índice de solução. This clearly separates it from siblings like listar_avaliacoes/listar_reclamacoes, which return raw records rather than aggregated indicators.

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?

Explicit when-to-use trigger: 'Use quando a pessoa perguntar se um software é bem avaliado ou se o fornecedor responde às reclamações.' It gives clear intent-based context but does not name sibling tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when the user wants individual reviews, use listar_avaliacoes).

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