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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: it does not consume the calculator quota and works even after the free daily usage is exhausted, plus the response channel is e-mail rather than an in-chat result. However it says nothing about response latency, whether a ticket/reference is returned, or what happens on invalid e-mail, so with annotations carrying the safety signal a 3 is fair.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the deliverable, then the required inputs, then the response channel and quota caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only partly fills that gap by saying the reply arrives via e-mail; it does not describe what the tool call itself returns (confirmation, protocol number, error). Combined with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, meaningful gaps remain, but the core behavioral facts an agent needs are present.

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% (bare titles only), so the description carries the burden; it explains the two most important inputs – e-mail (required contact) and escopo (with concrete examples: number of panels, voltage class, deadline, city). It says nothing about nome, empresa, or the api_key parameter, which an agent could easily supply wrongly or omit.

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 and resource: forwards a request for a priced quote (orçamento) for an ART-signed study/report, and enumerates the covered study types (arc flash, short-circuit, selectivity, NR-10). It is clearly set apart from the calcular_* siblings as a commercial request rather than a calculation, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 concrete invocation guidance: supply the contact e-mail and the scope (panels, voltage class, deadline, city), and the team replies by e-mail. It also states when it is especially worth using – when the daily free calculator quota is exhausted – but offers no explicit 'do not use for X' exclusions.

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