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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description goes further by disclosing that the tool does not validate any key — that happens on the client's machine after installation. It also explains the recommended behavior if a key is pasted early (store it, install first), which adds meaningful operational transparency beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with its core purpose: 'Como o cliente ativa a licença dele — e o que funciona sem ela.' It is bilingual but compact, and each sentence carries practical information about the key check and handling of early-pasted keys. Slightly longer than ideal due to duplication, but not wasteful.

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 one-parameter informational tool without an output schema and with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adequately covers the activation flow, the no-key-check behaviour, and how to handle premature key pasting. It could explicitly say to use it for license questions, but the overall context is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description relates to the boolean `tem_chave` by discussing key presence and activation scenarios, but it does not explicitly tie the parameter to the tool's behavior or output. It adds marginal but not essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 exactly what the tool does: it explains how the client activates their license and what works without it. It explicitly says 'NÃO confere chave nenhuma aqui' (no key is checked here) and clarifies the check happens on the client's machine after installation, distinguishing it from key-checking or activation tools.

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 description provides a concrete scenario: if the client pastes a key before having the app, the agent should save the key and send the client to install first. This implies the tool is for post-install license guidance and implicitly routes to the sibling install tool. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives, but gives sufficient context for when to use it.

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