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

Annotations already cover non-destructive, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining the editorial nature of the profile, the side-by-side cited nomenclature, and that myths are only referenced by title and located in Estudos. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The first sentence handles functionality and examples; the second adds an important content boundary without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully sketches the returned composition: profile, cited nomenclature, and linked Estudos. It does not describe not-found behavior or fallback language handling, but for a simple read-only slug lookup these are minor gaps.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping both parameters: slug is exemplified with 'exu', 'oxum', 'xango', 'iemanja', and locale is implied by 'no idioma pedido'. It could add slug normalization or locale default details, but the schema already provides the enum/default for locale.

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?

'Devolve o perfil de um Orixá pelo slug' names a specific action and resource, reinforced with concrete slug examples. The description clearly differentiates this tool from article/glossary/odu siblings by focusing on Orixá profile lookup.

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 description gives clear lookup context: slug plus requested language, with a boundary that the profile is editorial while myth content lives in Estudos. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool as the alternative, but it implies where fuller myth content should be found.

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