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

The description discloses the simulation method (RK4, J·dω/dt) and outputs (acceleration time, start/stall verdict, thermal rotor blocked verdict). The 'readOnlyHint' annotation is consistent with a simulation tool. However, limitations, assumptions (e.g., motor model), and output format are not detailed, which leaves gaps.

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 paragraph that starts with the main purpose and then lists some parameters. It is relatively concise but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). The inclusion of 'Gratuito' adds no functional value and slightly detracts from conciseness.

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 17 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of a motor start simulation, the description only partially covers expected outputs (three items) and omits many parameter details. Assumptions and typical use cases are not mentioned, leaving the tool underspecified.

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 explains 6 of 17 parameters: polos, inercia_kgm2, tipo_carga, conjugado_partida_carga_pu, conjugado_pleno_pu, and t_rotor_bloqueado_s. It provides meanings and allowed values for tipo_carga. However, key parameters like potencia_kW, tensao_V, scc_MVA, etc., are not described, making the description incomplete.

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 it simulates direct-on-line motor starting, computes acceleration time, determines if the motor starts or stalls, and evaluates thermal protection. The verb 'simula' and resource 'partida DIRETA no tempo' provide a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'partida_motor', missing some clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'partida_motor', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context implies the tool is for direct-start simulation, but this is not stated explicitly.

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