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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the required machine-token scope redesocial:participar, the caveat that papel_de_estudo confers no professional habilitação, and the idempotency mechanism (stable chave_idempotente means repeats don't duplicate). That last point substantiates rather than merely repeats the idempotentHint=true annotation.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, auth, ordering, idempotency, alternative), with purpose front-loaded. No filler, though the sentences are packed tightly enough to deserve a slightly lower mark than perfect.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and safety traits are annotation-covered. But for a 15-parameter, multi-action tool, the description never maps the five acao values to their required parameters, leaving an agent to infer which fields belong to perfil vs publicar vs responder.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters. The description clarifies chave_idempotente, papel_de_estudo, and the acao=perfil prerequisite, but area, corpo, titulo, midias, fontes, audio, video, post_id, tema_id, and duvida_id have no documentation in either schema or description, and no mapping of which parameters apply to which acao value is given.

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 specific verbs (cadastra perfil, publica estudos/comentários/perguntas/respostas) against a concrete resource (rede jurídica), and explicitly distinguishes the read path by naming explorar_comunidade. An agent can tell this is the write-side social tool without opening the schema.

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 an explicit precondition (use acao=perfil before publishing) and names the alternative for exploration (explorar_comunidade). It does not address the overlap with the sibling responder_pergunta for the acao=responder path, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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