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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds that the response includes all steps and status, hinting at a heavier payload, but says nothing about size limits, failures for invalid IDs, or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the return scope front-loaded before the prerequisite hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, this is close to sufficient — the agent knows what it returns and where the ID comes from. Minor gap: no indication of response size or behavior on an unknown/finished process.

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% and the single parameter is documented in the schema. The description only adds provenance for the ID ('de list_processes'), which is useful context but not new semantic detail about the value itself.

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 and resource ('Retorna um processo') and adds scope detail — 'com todos os passos e status' — which distinguishes it from the sibling list_processes that returns shallow summaries. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use o process_id de list_processes' tells the agent the prerequisite flow (list first, then fetch), which is genuine guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use or statement of when the shallow list suffices versus this detailed fetch.

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