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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: authentication mechanisms, paid vs. evaluation access, free examples, and pricing for the adjacent gerar_markdown tool.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler, and the core action plus access modes are front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from pricing), but every sentence contributes relevant 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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the non-obvious access paths and alternatives. It omits any note about what the tool returns (Markdown content, implied by the name) and failure behavior, but otherwise gives an agent enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description names acesso_codigo, avaliacao_codigo, and agent_pass in prose but adds no syntax, format, or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 verb (Lê) and a resource (Markdown), but the resource is only a format, not the specific document type (edital) implied by the name. It references gerar_markdown as a purchase alternative but does not clearly distinguish itself from other read tools like documento_leitura. Purpose is inferable but not sharply framed.

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?

Describes access conditions (acesso_codigo purchased, or avaliacao_codigo + agent_pass) and notes free examples plus a paid alternative (gerar_markdown). However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like documento_leitura, nor does it explicitly say when it cannot be used.

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