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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'sem login, sem custo, sem rede' plus 'grátis' for list — real context about auth and cost. It also discloses an alternate access path (skill://sapiens/<slug>/SKILL.md as an MCP resource), though it says little about size/length of the returned SKILL.md.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the read-before-operating directive, then sub-actions, then the slug index. The long pipe-delimited slug list is dense but functional; the closing resource note is arguably redundant with the earlier 'servido pelo próprio connector' framing.

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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what each action returns (index of slug + when-to-use; the full SKILL.md) and offers an equivalent resource route. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by enumerating the complete valid slug set and the name=<slug> pairing for 'get', whereas the schema only offers three examples. It does not explain slug aliasing or error behavior for an unknown slug.

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 resource (the SKILLS/step-by-step docs of each Sapiens flow) and the two operations ('list' index, 'get' full SKILL.md), and explicitly frames itself as served by the connector rather than being an operational tool. This clearly separates it from the 29 sibling tools, which all perform flows rather than document them.

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 an explicit directive — read the skill BEFORE operating the flow — plus the cost rationale (cheaper than a bad generation that charges Sinapses), and routes the agent to action='list' when the slug is unknown. When-to-use, why, and the fallback path are all stated.

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