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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description goes well beyond that: 202 on acceptance vs 200 when reusing a finished analysis, resumability of interrupted requests, explicit POST to resume a pause, failure messages stating reason and next action, and hard capacity limits (2k facts, 100 tenders per company, subject to budget). It also scopes the outcome ('triage with evidence, not a final qualification decision').

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence (status codes, resume, limits, follow-up verb) carries operational weight. It is dense and slightly list-like, with a couple of sentences that could be tightened, but there is no filler.

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 an async, non-idempotent job trigger with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: acceptance vs reuse semantics, resume path, failure reporting, quota limits, and the required follow-up read. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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% (v as SHA-256, id as document ID, cnpj as 14-char identifier), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description alludes to the company record, attachments and tender but does not add format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it starts or resumes an analysis over a company record, its attachments and a tender. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling it must be followed by ('follow it with get_participation'), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit invocation gate ('Call it only when the user asks') and explicit sequencing ('follow it with get_participation', 'Follow-up only by GET'). It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or routing against sibling evaluation/qualification tools, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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