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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the calculation nature. The description adds behavioral details: 'Gratuito (uso limitado)' indicates usage limits, and explains how parameters affect results (e.g., com_cabo gives fault current at installation point, lower than busbar). No contradictions 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses abbreviations and compact notation (e.g., 'Icc 3φ/2φ/fase-terra') to save space. While it is a single dense paragraph, it efficiently conveys information without excessive verbosity. Minor structural improvement (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability.

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?

Given the high complexity (17 parameters, no output schema), the description provides substantial context but does not explain all parameters nor describe the output format (e.g., what fields are returned). With readOnlyHint, safety is assured, but an agent would still need to infer output structure. Missing details on unmentioned parameters reduce completeness somewhat.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains several key parameters (potencia_curto_mva, icc_rede_kA, xr_rede, xr_trafo, tipo_aterramento, Rn_ohm, com_cabo, cabo_secao_mm2, cabo_m) with functional meanings. However, it omits explanations for tensao_kv, trafo_kVA, trafo_V2_kv, trafo_Vcc_pct, cabo_material, cabo_num_condutores, and api_key, which are not described. Thus it partially compensates.

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 clearly states it calculates short-circuit currents per IEC 60909, specifying fault types (3φ, 2φ, phase-ground), X/R, and peak current. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and the title reinforces the standard. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calcular_energia_incidente or grupo_gerador.

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 provides clear guidance on key parameter choices (e.g., use potencia_curto_mva OR icc_rede_kA for network data; com_transformador for secondary side; com_cabo for cable effects; tipo_aterramento for phase-ground fault). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool versus siblings, but the context is adequate for an agent to decide.

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