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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by stating the return shape (most relevant articles plus an excerpt) and the escalation path to ler_artigo_ajuda. It stops short of noting result limits or ranking behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 action and scope, then usage conditions, then the non-use case, then return behavior and the next step — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense but each clause carries routing information.

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?

For a read-only search tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: domain, query style, exclusions, return format and follow-up tool. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% — both 'termo' and 'limite' are documented with examples, ranges and defaults in the schema itself. The description's phrasing about using the user's words or the screen name overlaps with what the schema already says, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 — searching the upCampo Help Center (support.upcampo.com.br) for usage articles — and enumerates the kinds of content covered (menu locations, field meaning, how-to, FAQ). It clearly distinguishes itself from the consultar_* family by scoping to 'how to use' questions.

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 explicit when-to-use examples in the user's own voice ('como cadastro um talhão', 'onde lanço abastecimento') and an explicit when-not: farm data questions should go to consultar_*. It also names the follow-up tool (ler_artigo_ajuda) and the argument (slug) for reading a full article.

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