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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds operational constraints: credential reuse from reading, no AI start, no new analysis on read, partial data indicating coverage, and export requiring a finished version.

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 content is front-loaded with the dossier contents and then follows with operational notes. The sentences are compact, though the repeated emphasis on 'does not start AI' and 'no new analysis' is slightly redundant.

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 dossier tool with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main return categories, access credential, AI behavior, partial-coverage signal, and export condition. It omits pagination behavior and exact response shape, but those are minor relative to the schema.

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 all eight parameters. The description adds only minor semantic context by linking acesso_codigo to reading access, which is useful but not compensating for any schema gap.

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 identifies the resource as a dossier and lists its contents: items, requirements, attestations, deadlines, obligations, conditions, exceptions, and excerpts/pages. It distinguishes the operation from AI analysis, though it does not explicitly state a retrieval verb, so an agent must infer 'get' from the tool name.

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?

It gives useful context that the dossier is included in document access, does not start AI, and requires the same acesso_codigo as reading. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_document, get_deadlines, or get_reading_manifest, leaving comparison to inference.

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