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 real behavioral context beyond that: the timeline content, the guarantee that texts match the panel, and notably the retention limit ('falhas individuais só existem enquanto o check cru está guardado (8 dias)'), which warns the agent that failure detail can be absent for older occurrences.

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?

Two sentences, well front-loaded: first the payload scope and timeline components, then the retention caveat. 'Com os mesmos textos do painel' is slightly decorative but conveys UI-parity, so little is wasted.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the timeline segments and state parity with the panel. Combined with a single required id and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the return format/ordering details are left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from listar_ocorrencias. The description adds no extra semantics about the id (format, retrieval path) beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly that it returns the detail of a single occurrence and that the payload equals the fields of listar_ocorrencias plus a timeline (falhas, início, avisos por canal, volta, encerramento, publicação). That implicit contrast with listar_ocorrencias lets an agent separate the two, though it is phrased as a noun ('Detalhe de...') rather than an explicit verb.

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?

Usage is implied: it is the per-occurrence view, taking an id produced by listar_ocorrencias. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement and no named alternative beyond the implicit link to the listing tool. The 8-day retention note is a useful practical constraint but is not framed as routing guidance.

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