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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely non-redundant fact — 'Não cobra' (it does not charge / consume credits) — which is useful for a quota-related tool. It still says nothing about validity duration semantics or what the call yields.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient — the brevity comes at the cost of basic clarity about the operation.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the bar is modest, yet the description still omits what the tool does, what it returns, and when to prefer it over the three sibling avaliacao_* tools. 'Não cobra' is the only substantive addition.

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 (agent_pass) with 100% schema description coverage, including where the credential comes from and an explicit clarification that it is not a User-Agent. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 names a quota composition ('um premium e 100 básicos, com validade') but never states what the tool actually does — it reads like an attribute of a quota rather than an action the agent can invoke. Against siblings avaliacao_basico, avaliacao_premium and avaliacao_basico_resultado, an agent cannot tell what operation this performs or what it returns.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. There is no indication of when to call avaliacao_cotas versus avaliacao_basico, avaliacao_premium or avaliacao_basico_resultado, nor any prerequisite or trigger condition.

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