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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 50-page cap, the credential-scoped franchise window, the global budget dependency, absence of auto-renewal, the fact that repeating the same document does not consume another unit, and the exact auth headers (X-Editalmd-Avaliacao plus X-Agent-Pass) needed for reads and GET /geracao. The 'repetition does not consume another unit' claim sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but it describes unit accounting for a document rather than asserting pure call-level idempotency, so it reads as clarifying rather than contradicting the annotation.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a run-on chain of semicolon-free fragments that repeats the 'guarde evaluation.access_code' instruction twice and mixes limits, auth, and billing caveats with no structure. Every clause carries information, but the packaging hurts scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly covers the outcome surface: track status via estado_geracao/agent_pass and retrieve evaluation.access_code. Auth, franchise limits, budget caveats, and the no-payment rule are all present; only the explicit relationship to the basic-tier siblings is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, agent_pass) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches context around agent_pass (store it, pair it with headers) and constrains id implicitly to documents up to 50 pages, but adds no format or syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: consuming one sponsored premium evaluation unit on a document of up to 50 pages, and it implicitly separates itself from avaliacao_basico by noting that the basic tier does not open premium content. The purpose is clear, though the sibling differentiation is expressed only obliquely through the access-tier remark rather than a direct 'use X instead'.

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 real when-to-use context: one premium unit per document, up to 50 pages, repetitions retrieve the same access, and the franchise is bounded by the earlier of the agent's 30 days or the end of the pilot. It also states a when-not ('Não envie pagamento') and implies the basic alternative is insufficient for premium content, though it never names avaliacao_basico/avaliacao_basico_resultado as the fallback route.

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