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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It adds useful content semantics (editorial profile, cited nomenclature, myths located in Studies) but says nothing about return format, pagination, or missing-slug behavior.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the operation and slug examples, then clarify what the payload contains. Dense but every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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, the description must describe the return, and it does: profile plus trilingual nomenclature and linked Studies. For a simple 2-param read-only lookup this is adequately complete, missing only error/empty-result behavior.

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 only 50% (slug is undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by supplying concrete slug values ('exu', 'oxum', 'xango', 'iemanja'). It also reinforces the locale intent via 'no idioma pedido', which the enum already partially documents.

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 specific verb ('Devolve o perfil') and resource (an Orixá profile) and gives concrete slug examples. It also clarifies content scope (editorial profile; myths live in the Studies), which helps separate this from study/article tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: fetch a single Orixá profile by slug, with linked Studies mentioned. There is no explicit 'use this when / use get_glossary or get_article instead when' routing, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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