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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real operational context: it does not trigger OCR, the same authorization also unlocks the ZIP and images via the API, only ready resources are returned, and document_approved: false does not block reading. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 short and front-loads the returned payload, which is good. But several fragments ('Only ready resources.', 'It does not start OCR.') read as notes rather than a coherent flow, making it feel choppy rather than tightly structured.

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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage on four parameters, the description still sketches the return contents (pages, images, SHA-256, version), the credential semantics, and the readiness/approval gating. It is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly, with only return shape details left implicit.

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. The description only reinforces acesso_codigo ('the examples are free') and does not add syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 identifies the resource and its payload ('The document manifest: pages, images, SHA-256 and version'), so an agent knows what data comes back. However, it never states an explicit verb (retrieve/fetch) and does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_document or list_document_files, leaving overlap unresolved.

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 does not start OCR' and 'Only ready resources' imply when this tool applies and when it does not, and 'Send acesso_codigo; the examples are free' gives an invocation precondition. But no alternative tool is ever named for the OCR or non-ready cases, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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