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

The description substantially goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the OAuth endpoint and scope (scope relatos:escrever, /oauth/token), warning about the credential need, and defining the anti-forgery anchor: the exact quoted excerpt must match what ler_pagina returned. This adds actionable behavioral context that enums and the readOnly/destructive hints alone do not provide. No contradiction with the 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 three sentences long and each sentence earns its place: purpose, authentication requirement, and the critical exact-match anchor. It is front-loaded and free of filler, despite being information-dense.

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?

The description plus the rich input schema fully specify the operation: what the tool does, when to use it, what credential is required, how caminho is canonical, how the trecho_citado de ancoragem must match, and when other fields are intended. The output schema is provided, so return-value details are not missing from coverage artifact.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents each parameter. The tool description mostly reinforces the trecho_citado rule already present in the schema, rather than introducing new parameter-level details. It adds only a general rationale for the anchor, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the concrete action with a specific verb ('Relata um defeito'), identifies the target resource ('página publicada do acervo'), and lists defect categories (citação legal mal atribuída, fonte divergente, conteúdo desatualizado). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools buscar_paginas and ler_pagina by focusing on reporting, not searching or reading.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (found a defect in a published page) and the important workflow prerequisite: the quoted excerpt must come from exactly the Markdown returned by ler_pagina. It also states the required credential scope. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or name an alternative pathway, so it stops just short of a 5.

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