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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the idempotency claim ('repetir não duplica') reinforces rather than adds. The genuinely new behavioral context is the "all" caveat ('monitor criado depois não entra sozinho') and the return value, which go beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences that front-load the purpose, then cover parameter semantics, mutation behavior, and return value. No filler, though the idempotency sentence partially restates the annotation hint.

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?

Covers purpose, both parameters, the 'all' edge case, additive behavior, and the return value even though no output schema exists. An agent has enough to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains the "all" sentinel's time-bounded semantics and the trailing-monitor caveat, which the schema's bare 'Lista de ids de monitor ou "all"' 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+resource ('Liga o canal a monitores') and immediately clarifies the effect: alerts flow through this channel when a linked monitor goes down or recovers. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like criar_canal, remover_canal, and testar_canal.

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?

Explains how to supply monitorIds (ids from listar_monitores, or "all" for today's monitors) and notes the additive semantics ('Soma aos vínculos que já existem'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an unlink alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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