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

Read-only annotations are already declared, yet the description still adds real behavior: the output is a conservative PPE band (≤4/5/8/12 or >12 cal/cm²) rather than a point value, lee is an upper theoretical bound, and the service is free with limited usage. It stops short of stating numeric limits of the free tier or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope constraint and the triage disclaimer before the method breakdown, and the bulleted method table is scannable. It is dense but nearly every clause (out-of-scope standards, band-vs-point, per-method requirements) prevents a misinvocation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned PPE band, the upper-bound nature of the lee result, and the triage-level confidence. Units for ibf_ka/t_ms are only implied by field names, which is the one residual gap for an eight-parameter 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% and property titles ('T Ms', 'Ibf Ka') carry no meaning, so the description does the heavy lifting: it enumerates metodo values with their OSHA table mappings, tipo_trabalho enums with voltage ranges, and flags dist_trabalho_mm/comprimento_arco_m as conditionally required. It leaves tensao_kv, ibf_ka, t_ms and api_key entirely unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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+resource ('Energia incidente para sistemas > 15 kV') and immediately scopes it away from the IEEE 1584:2018 / NBR 17227 regime handled by the sibling calcular_energia_incidente. An agent can pick this tool over that sibling from the description alone.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (>15 kV, outside IEEE 1584), when-not ('É TRIAGEM, NÃO laudo', IEEE 1584 algorithm not used, gap/electrode config not applicable) and a per-method routing table for osha/lee/epri including the parameters each requires. That is a full decision procedure.

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