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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses additive merge semantics ('Soma aos vínculos que já existem; repetir não duplica'), reinforcing idempotentHint with concrete behavior. It also scopes the operation ('Só mexe em quem é avisado') and explains the 'all' snapshot semantics, which annotations cannot express.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each following sentence carries distinct, useful information (sequencing, scoping, param semantics, return). It is information-dense but slightly run-on in a few places, keeping it just short of pristine.

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 correctly states the return ('Devolve os monitores vinculados agora'), and it covers usage sequencing, exclusions, idempotent add behavior, and parameter sources. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains where each id comes from (id from listar_canais, monitorIds from listar_monitores) and clarifies that 'all' means all of today's monitors, with a monitor created later not joining automatically—a nuance the schema does not convey.

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 ('Liga um canal de alerta a monitores') and immediately describes the effect: alerts route through the channel when monitors go down or come back. It also distinguishes itself from siblings that touch the status page (configurar_status_page/estruturar_pagina), so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 sequencing guidance: 'Use depois de criar_canal (o canal nasce sem monitores) ou pra passar a avisar um canal existente.' It names the prerequisite tool and the two situations that select this tool, plus an exclusion that redirects to the correct sibling for status-page display.

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