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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing auth needs (acesso_codigo/examples), that there is no additional charge at this stage, and that the call does not trigger another analysis. There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, but the description never claims read-only and the non-read-only hint may reflect access/credit bookkeeping, so it is not a hard contradiction.

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?

Front-loads the core action (qualification list with literal excerpts) before prerequisites and scope caveats. Several sentences each carry distinct information, with only mild redundancy in the pricing/analysis caveats.

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 4-param tool with no output schema, it describes the returned content (condições, exceções, evidências por página) and what it explicitly does not cover (prazos, propostas, company assertions). Sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though return shape details are 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 thoroughly. The description reinforces the acesso_codigo requirement and the 'five examples' option but adds no syntax beyond the schema. 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?

States a concrete purpose: listing the edital's habilitação (qualification) requirements with literal excerpts, and clarifies scope ('sem afirmar o que a empresa possui'). It also distinguishes itself from the dossie sibling by noting deadlines/proposals live there. Clear, though the Portuguese phrasing is dense.

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?

Explains access prerequisites (acesso_codigo of the purchased document or one of five examples) and routes other obligations (prazos, propostas) to the dossie. Also states 'A consulta não inicia outra análise', a useful usage caveat. No explicit when-not beyond the dossie pointer.

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