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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a calculation tool. It adds behavioral context: validated model, two current patamares, default enclosure size, and the fact that the reduced current often governs the worst case. No contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It is reasonably concise but could benefit from structuring (e.g., bullet points for parameters or outputs). Every sentence adds value; no wasted text.

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 11 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description explains the core calculation and two-current behavior but lacks details on return format (expected outputs like Ei, LAS, EPI are mentioned but not structure) and parameter constraints (e.g., voltage range). Slightly incomplete for a complex tool.

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%, but the description clarifies the config parameter (enum values), t_arc_s and t_arc_reduzido_s (two current levels), and larg_mm/alt_mm/prof_mm (enclosure dimensions with default 508). However, many parameters (tensao_kv, ibf_ka, gap_mm, dist_trabalho_mm, api_key) are not explained. Partial compensation.

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 the tool calculates arc flash incident energy (Ei), LAS, and EPI category per IEEE 1584:2018 / NBR 17227, with a specific voltage range (208 V–15 kV). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calcular_energia_incidente_hv' which likely covers higher voltages.

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 explains when to use the tool (IEEE 1584/NBR 17227, voltage range), the need for two current levels (t_arc_s and t_arc_reduzido_s), and that omitting the reduced time yields a single level. It also notes limited free usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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