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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the authentication requirement (account or organization key plus an admin-authorized connection in Bots), the specific failure mode (403 bots_external_disabled without authorization), retention behavior tied to the space setting, and that it reads the same space as the app. It also adds a rate-limit constraint of at least 10 seconds, which is real operational context the annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded purpose and the 'use before working' cue are well placed, but the authorization requirement is stated twice in nearly identical wording ('Exige chave da conta ou organização e conexão autorizada...' and 'Chave da conta ou organização, com conexão externa autorizada em Bots'), which wastes space without adding information.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining access conditions and return scope, and it covers auth, the 403 error, retention and rate limits well. The one gap is that it never describes what a successful response looks like across the four resource types it claims to consult.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description does not invent or misdescribe any inputs.

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 concrete verb ('Consulta') and enumerates the resources covered: bots, tarefas, conversas and memória da organização. This distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings such as cancelar_bot or atualizar_memoria_bots, though it does not clarify whether it returns all four resource types at once or how the result is structured.

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?

'Use antes de trabalhar' gives a clear timing cue, and the task-tracking case comes with a concrete rule: wait at least 10 seconds between queries. No competing tool is named as an alternative, so the guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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