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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses idempotency of 'fechar', that the tool pays XP rather than charging Sinapses, and the full scoring model (step thresholds, diminishing returns, width bonuses). This is exactly the mutation/side-effect context annotations (readOnlyHint=false) do not provide on their own.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the 'get' sub-action is delivered as one very long parenthetical enumerating seven separate outputs and the scoring rules that follow are dense prose. Every piece is relevant, yet the structure makes it hard to scan and could have been broken into a list.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description outlines returns for both actions in detail (pieces per activity, XP paid, Casa Cheia projection, streaks, prior weeks). For a one-parameter enum tool this is complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but with a single enum parameter the description fully compensates by explaining what 'get' returns and what 'fechar' does. An agent can choose the correct action value from the description alone.

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: weekly house activities, what you produced and how much XP it yielded, with identity via sessionToken. It clearly delimits the XP/weekly domain. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from any of the many sapiens_* siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Both sub-actions are spelled out ('get' reads the week, 'fechar' closes pending weeks and credits Casa Cheia), and it explicitly notes 'Esta tool PAGA XP, não cobra Sinapses', which tells an agent what this tool is not for. No comparison to sibling tools is offered, so 4 rather than 5.

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