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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the timeline composition (falhas, início, aviso, volta, encerramento, publicação) and — crucially — the 8-day retention limit on individual failure entries, which no annotation or schema conveys.

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 core purpose, then usage, alternatives, return shape, and one caveat — each sentence carries distinct information. Slightly dense, but no filler or repetition.

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, so the description compensates by describing the return shape (listar_ocorrencias fields plus linha_do_tempo with en/ate/tipo/texto) and the retention caveat. For a read-only single-param tool this is complete enough to call 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 with 100% schema coverage, where the schema already states the id comes from listar_ocorrencias. The description repeats that mapping but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific resource (uma ocorrência / monitor downtime) and states the scope: the detailed timeline view. It explicitly distinguishes itself from listar_ocorrencias (list/filters) and publicar_ocorrencia (publish to status page), so an agent can route correctly 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 an explicit when-to-use trigger ('explain a specific downtime') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them — listar_ocorrencias for lists/filters, publicar_ocorrencia for publishing. Nothing is left to inference.

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