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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only informational tool, and the description is consistent with that. Beyond the annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it warns about the need to close and reopen Claude after installation because the connector is registered at startup. This goes beyond the basic safety profile and helps the agent set correct user expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the key caveat about restarting Claude. However, the PT and EN versions largely duplicate each other, which adds some redundancy. Still, the extra details are useful, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple informational tool with one optional parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers the main facts: installation steps, download link, and the restart requirement. There is no output schema, but the tool likely presents instructions directly, so no further return-value explanation is necessary. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the OS parameter in the description text.

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 schema already documents the single optional parameter 'sistema' with its possible values windows/mac/linux, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not elaborate further on how the parameter affects the output, but since the schema covers it, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool provides step-by-step installation instructions for AlgoMaker on this machine, including a download link. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which cover account opening, general start, and licensing.

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 intended use case is implied by the phrase 'passo a passo para instalar o AlgoMaker', but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools or any exclusions. It is reasonable to infer that it is for installation only, but the description does not state this explicitly.

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