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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is deterministic and costs $0.01 per call via x402, which are important operational facts. However, it omits auth requirements, return format, error behavior, and rate limits.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the core purpose, followed by a compact list of checks and key behavioral facts. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It clarifies what is checked and notes pricing and determinism, but leaves the agent without usage guidelines, most parameter meanings, or any sense of the output structure.

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?

The description provides no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already covers. With 60% schema description coverage, two parameters ('produto' and 'afiliado') lack any description in both the schema and the description, so the agent gets no guidance on their meaning or expected values.

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 states a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('Portuguese ad/video copy') and enumerates the exact compliance rules checked. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is far more specific than the siblings' domains (chat, AI detection, localization, margin).

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., when to choose this over detetor-ia-pt or other siblings). The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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