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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it returns the full article with structured formatting and includes a 'related' list for navigation. However, it doesn't mention pagination or size limits, but the structured nature suggests completeness for an article.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then the usage condition and related-article feature. Every clause adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with a simple, fully-documented single parameter and an output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and how to navigate related articles. It is complete for the agent's needs.

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 the parameter 'artigo' is fully documented in the schema (accepts slug or article URL). The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline would be 3. However, it reinforces the expected input by referencing 'como veio de buscar_ajuda' in the schema description, and the overall context implies singular article retrieval. Score 4 reflects the schema's completeness and the description's implicit support.

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 ('Devolve um artigo inteiro da Central de Ajuda') and describes the return content in detail (menu location, fields, steps, FAQ). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling buscar_ajuda by providing the full article rather than a snippet.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use depois de buscar_ajuda, quando o trecho não bastar para responder.' It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, and further explains how to follow related articles without a new search.

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