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

Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent safety. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: slug normalization of old forms, the fact that only Meji Odus are translated while combined ones always return Portuguese, the citation of the Tratado Enciclopédico, and the explicit omission of unverified fields listed in 'omitted'. This is exactly the kind of disclosure that helps an agent interpret responses.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, language behavior, source citation, and omission policy. The main action is front-loaded, and the structure is tight despite covering multiple behavioral details.

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 description covers slug variants, locale expectations, citation info, and omitted unverified fields, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret most responses. It does not specify the output envelope or error behavior for unknown slugs, but given the annotations and focused scope, this is a minor gap.

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?

The slug parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates with concrete examples and normalization rules. For locale, the schema only says 'language of response', while the description clarifies a critical nuance: locale only affects the 16 Meji texts, not the 240 combined Odus. This adds real meaning over the schema.

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 opens with 'Devolve um dos 256 Odus pelo slug' — a specific verb plus resource — and clarifies the two content types (16 Meji with own text, 240 combined with editorial description). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling get tools by targeting Odus only.

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?

The intended use is clear: call this when you have an Odu slug and want its corresponding content, optionally in a specific locale. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the narrow resource scope makes the usage context unambiguous.

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