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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — no key is validated here, validation happens on the client's machine after installation. This prevents the agent from attempting validation in-conversation, which is real behavioral value.

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 key point (no key checked here) is front-loaded and the practical instruction is useful, but the text is long for a one-parameter tool and the [EN] sentence largely repeats the Portuguese opening, adding redundancy rather than new 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?

For a read-only, openWorld=false informational tool with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the no-validation behavior, and the handoff to installation. It is adequately complete, though it does not enumerate which features the licence actually unlocks.

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?

There is a single parameter (tem_chave) with 100% schema description coverage ('o cliente já comprou e tem uma chave?'). The description does not reference the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 states what the tool covers (what the AlgoMaker licence unlocks and what works without it) and explicitly disclaims key validation, which separates it from the install/account siblings. It is clear but framed as an informational topic rather than a crisp verb+resource, and it never names the sibling tools it is distinct from.

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 a concrete routing rule: if the client pastes a key before having the engine, store it and send them to install first ('mandá-lo instalar primeiro'). That is explicit when/when-not guidance, though it describes the alternative action rather than naming the sibling tool algomaker_instalar.

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