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

Annotations mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by framing the operation as returning a document. It adds useful behavioral context: the output is the same Markdown document served at a known URL, includes all published answers, and each answer contains author, verified OAB registration, and official sources. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a clarifying path equivalence and content details. Every clause carries useful information with no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, the Markdown format, the content scope, and how the parameter relates to buscar_duvidas. Nothing essential for invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that 'duvida' accepts a slug or the full path returned by buscar_duvidas, with an example. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond referencing the same served path, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it 'Devolve' (returns) 'uma dúvida da rede social' with all published answers in Markdown. It also identifies the exact served document at /redesocial/duvida/{slug}/index.md, which distinguishes it from sibling search/browse tools. It does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling, but the intended resource is clear.

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving a specific dúvida with its full set of answers, and the schema adds that the slug can be the full path returned by buscar_duvidas. It offers clear context for when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like ler_pagina or fetch.

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