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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds transparency by stating it is a screening tool (not a report), does not use the IEEE 1584 engine, and is free with usage limits. This goes beyond the annotations and provides behavioral context.

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 well-structured, starting with the purpose, then method details in bullet points. It is dense but efficient, with no wasted sentences. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers core logic and parameter dependencies. However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or the api_key parameter. Considering the complexity, it is adequate but lacks completeness for a fully autonomous agent.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well. It explains the metodo parameter in detail, including the specific parameters required for each method (tipo_trabalho for OSHA; dist_trabalho_mm for Lee and EPRI; comprimento_arco_m for EPRI). It also implicitly explains tensao_kv, ibf_ka, and t_ms as voltage, fault current, and time. However, it does not explain the api_key parameter.

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 title and description clearly state that this tool calculates incident energy for systems >15 kV using OSHA, Lee, and EPRI methods. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calcular_energia_incidente (likely for IEEE 1584) by specifying it is outside that standard and a screening tool.

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 explicitly states it is for systems >15 kV and outside IEEE 1584, implying when not to use it. It provides context for each method (e.g., OSHA for banded EPI, Lee for theoretical upper bound, EPRI for high voltage). However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when to prefer them, though it clearly implies alternatives for lower voltages or detailed reports.

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