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 adds one meaningful behavioral fact: it does not start processing, clarifying that a 'generation' call here is purely observational rather than triggering work. It says nothing further about polling behavior or state transitions.

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 sentence with no padding, so it is appropriately sized. However, the wording is muddled ('follows the real phases and the completion') and not cleanly front-loaded, so brevity does not translate into clarity.

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?

The tool is a status/read operation with no output schema, so the description should clarify what status information is returned and what the phases mean. It gestures at 'phases' and 'completion' but never defines them, leaving the agent unable to interpret the response.

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% with all four parameters (id, agent_pass, acesso_codigo, avaliacao_codigo) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 says it 'follows the real phases and the completion,' which hints at status polling but never states a specific verb+resource (e.g., 'retrieve the generation status of a document by ID'). The phrasing is vague and reads like a translation, so an agent cannot cleanly distinguish it from the sibling 'original_status'.

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?

'free, without starting processing' implicitly signals this is a safe polling call that does not trigger generation, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (e.g., original_status) an agent would pick between.

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