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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side effect that enable_share turns on the read/share link and describes the contents of the archive, which is genuinely useful. It does not say whether the resulting share link is public or persistent, whether permissions are required, or what happens when the diligência has no documents.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the output artifact and the column list are stated up front and the enable_share condition closes it. The column enumeration ('situação, resultado, validade, código, protocolo, resumo e link') is slightly long but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return value as a link to a ZIP plus a spreadsheet and enumerates its columns, which is exactly what an agent needs to report back. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty diligência, expired link, failure mode) to be fully complete for a two-parameter export tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It fully explains enable_share (boolean that turns on the read link when it is off) and implicitly scopes diligence_id to the diligência whose documents are exported, but gives no format, ID-type, or validation hints for the required parameter.

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 deliverable precisely: a ZIP containing all documents of the diligência (Documentos/ folder) plus an .xlsx with one row per document and a defined column set. It is not phrased as an action verb and never contrasts with siblings such as read_document or share, but the artifact it produces is unambiguous and no other sibling produces exports.

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 gives one concrete conditional: 'Usa o link de leitura; se estiver desligado, passe enable_share=true para ligá-lo', which is real operational guidance for the optional parameter. However, there is no statement of when to export versus reading documents individually (read_document) or fetching a single diligência (get_diligence), and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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