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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by calling it a verification. It adds critical context beyond annotations: the result can be optimistic if R_montante_ohm and X_montante_ohm are not provided, and the tool is free but with limited usage. No contradictions.

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 that conveys a lot of information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the purpose and formulas. While effective, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of parameter explanations to improve readability.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains core parameters but omits some important ones (U0_V, comprimento_m, secao_fase_mm2, T_op, material, api_key). There is no description of the return value, which is critical for an agent using the tool. Usage limits are mentioned but not detailed.

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 must explain parameters. It does well for key parameters (Ia_A, disjuntor_In_A+curva_mcb, i_dn_mA+RA_ohm, R_montante_ohm, X_montante_ohm, circuito_tipo, secao_pe_mm2, situacao). However, several parameters are not explained (U0_V, T_op, comprimento_m, secao_fase_mm2, material, api_key). The required U0_V is not described, leaving ambiguity.

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 verifies automatic disconnection protection per NBR 5410, with specific formulas for TN and TT systems. It distinguishes from siblings like calcular_curto_circuito and tempo_de_atuacao by focusing on the sectioning verification criterion.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (verifying protection by automatic disconnection) and differentiates between TN and TT system requirements. It mentions the optimistic result when upstream impedance is omitted and notes usage limits, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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