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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral context: it states the calculation domain, notes that SWBP is zero when there are no curves, and gives the 500 kgf cap for malha attachment. It also says the tool is free but limited in use, though it does not detail rate limits or authentication despite the api_key parameter.

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 dense but front-loads the tool purpose and computed outputs before moving into parameter-specific notes. It is appropriately sized for a 16-parameter calculation tool, though the semicolon-heavy style makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

For a complex 16-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description names the main result categories and explains some key parameters. Still, it leaves many required inputs without description and does not explain the expected response structure or calculation assumptions in enough detail for full completeness.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain several non-obvious parameters and enums, including n_cabos ∈ {1,3}, curvas_graus, curva_raio_m, attachment values, convencao, and swbp_classe/cabo_classe ranges. However, many parameters remain undocumented, including mu, material, incl_graus, api_key, and several required dimensional inputs.

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 identifies a cable-pulling traction calculation under IEEE 1185/525 and lists the computed quantities: winch tension, SWBP, duct occupancy per NBR 5410, and maximum admissible tension. It is specific enough to separate this from sizing tools like dimensionar_cabo, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The domain context implies it is for cable-pulling calculations, but the agent must infer that from the title and description rather than from stated usage rules.

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