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

Annotations only declare idempotent/non-destructive hints; the description goes further by disclosing the latency consequence ('próximo ciclo do worker, até 30 min') and the plan-limit failure mode (returns plan_limit and the monitor stays paused). This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: action first, then timing, then failure behavior. Each sentence delivers distinct information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the async timing, and the error/limit outcome — nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that id comes from listar_monitores. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the 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+resource ('Retoma um monitor pausado') and explicitly names the inverse operation pausar_monitor, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings such as pausar_monitor, criar_monitor or status_monitor 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?

The precondition is clear — the monitor must have been paused via pausar_monitor — and the counterpart tool is named, which gives strong routing guidance. There is no explicit 'when not to use' statement (e.g. what to do if the monitor is already active), so it falls just 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.