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

Annotations indicate read only (readOnlyHint: true) and non-destructive, which matches the description of a computation tool. The description adds behavioral context: 'Gratuito (uso limitado)' indicates free usage with limits. It also explains edge cases like SWBP being zero without curves. 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 a single dense paragraph with 5 sentences, front-loading the computed quantities. It is efficient but could be better structured with bullets or shorter sentences. Still, it earns its content.

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?

The description explains inputs but not the output format or how results are presented. Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema), this is a gap. However, it addresses most input semantics adequately.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds rich meaning for key parameters: n_cabos ∈ {1,3} (trifólio), curvas_graus as list of angles, attachment types (olhal/malha), convencao options (BR/NA/EU), and swbp_classe/cabo_classe options. It also clarifies that without curves, SWBP is zero.

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 cable pulling tension (tração no cabrestante), sidewall bearing pressure (SWBP), duct occupancy, and maximum allowable tension, referencing IEEE 1185/525 and NBR 5410. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dimensionar_cabo by focusing on cable pulling mechanics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The description only lists what it calculates without context for selection.

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