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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that authorship is derived from the token rather than the body, that declared sources and probabilities are not certified, that the repeat-request ID behavior holds, and that no code is executed. These are material facts an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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 verb and resource, then a chain of short factual sentences covering auth, authorship, certification caveat, and idempotency. Dense but every sentence carries information; 'Reutiliza autoria e persistência social' is the one vaguely worded clause that slightly dilutes it.

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 the hard parts for a write tool with rich annotations and an output schema: auth requirements, identity derivation, trust caveats on sources, and idempotency. Gaps remain around the perguntar/responder action modes and the duvida_id linkage, which are the main things an agent could still get wrong.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description must carry real weight; it does explain chave_idempotente semantics, the tese/antítese/síntese positions, and the non-certified nature of fontes and probabilidades. However, it says only 'Publica' while the schema's acao enum allows perguntar and responder, and it never mentions duvida_id, resposta_automatica, or the array limits, leaving substantial documented surface untouched.

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 ('Publica') and resource ('debate jurídico br.lex.1') plus the payload it carries (tese, antítese, síntese, fontes, chave_idempotente), so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like responder_pergunta or participar_rede_social, which is why it stops short of 5.

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 concrete preconditions: machine OAuth scope 'redesocial:participar' and a profile already created via participar_rede_social, which effectively points at a sibling as prerequisite. It also states the idempotency contract (repeating the request preserves the ID). No explicit when-not-to-use or guidance on choosing between publicar/perguntar/responder.

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