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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful context about what the tool returns: five free real samples in Markdown, original PDF, and image ZIP formats. It does not add further behavioral details such as pagination or access requirements, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the verb, output quantity, formats, and usage context without any filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations that cover the safety profile, the description provides enough context about what it returns and when to use it. It could specify the return structure more precisely, but it is adequate for a simple listing tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema description coverage is 100%, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('cinco provas reais gratuitas') and explains the purpose of checking Markdown, original PDF, and image ZIP formats. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like gerar_markdown or edital_markdown.

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?

The phrase 'antes de gerar outro documento' gives a clear timing condition for using the tool: before generating another document. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of use is well communicated.

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