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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the call is free and does not trigger processing, which is genuine value beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about the authorization requirement implied by the four credential-bearing parameters.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the cost/processing constraint is stated compactly. It is short enough to be efficient but borders on under-specification for a tool with complex access semantics.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys status-checking without side effects. It never describes what the returned phases look like or how to interpret completion, which an agent polling for a terminal state would find helpful.

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 schema already documents id, agent_pass, acesso_codigo and avaliacao_codigo in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'acompanha' and object 'fases reais e a conclusão' make it clear this reports progress/completion of a generation, but what is being generated (markdown? dossiê?) is left implicit and no sibling such as estado_cobranca or gerar_markdown is named. An agent can guess it is a status/polling tool but without confident disambiguation from its many siblings.

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?

'gratuitamente, sem iniciar processamento' implies the intended usage: check status without spending credits and without kicking off work. That is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for actually starting a generation.

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