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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the claim effect, the visible status shown to other sessions, the release conditions, and that the full text is returned. It does not cover failure modes such as what happens if the message was already taken, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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 description is three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key side effects and return behavior. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavior: claim visibility, release timing, and return value. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing and the undocumented 'id' parameter, but an agent can still call it correctly from the schema and description.

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 coverage is 50%, with 'by' described as a session/chat label and 'id' undocumented. The description adds useful meaning by showing that 'by' appears in the visible claim status ('pega por <by> às HH:MM'), but it does not explicitly explain that 'id' identifies the pending message to take.

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 action and resource: taking a pending message for this session, with scope limited to the current session. It also distinguishes the behavior from ordinary message viewing by explaining that other sessions see 'pega por <by> às HH:MM' instead of a new message.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Pega uma mensagem pendente pra esta sessão' and by the release condition 'quando for resolvida ou depois de 2 h'. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with siblings such as aicq_inbox, aicq_done, or aicq_thread, nor does it state when not to use it.

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