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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: how remaining slots are derived (`monitors.limit` − `monitors.active`), that `statusPage: null` means no page exists, that `identityChosen: false` means default name/address, and that `incidentesAbertos` carries ids usable with atualizar_incidente.

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 purpose and the call-ordering rule before the field inventory, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and long-ish, but the length is justified by the absence of an output schema; a slightly tighter field list would earn a 5.

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 fully compensates by documenting the return shape field by field (`plan`, `monitors`, `statusPage`, `onboarding.steps`, `upgradeUrl`) plus the semantics of sentinel values. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result or decide the next call is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description's field-level detail concerns the return payload, not inputs.

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 ('Resumo da conta no Tá Rodando') and enumerates the exact contents (plano, vagas de monitor, intervalos permitidos, status page, primeiros passos). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from listar_monitores for monitor state, so an agent can route 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?

'Chame primeiro, antes de criar monitor ou página' gives an explicit ordering rule, and it names the alternative for a related need ('Pro estado dos monitores, use listar_monitores'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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