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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: login opens in the browser, API key is an alternative, and adding a key to THIS server is ineffective because the public address doesn't authenticate. It also states a clear boundary about not altering client config without user request.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides necessary authentication context and usage guidance. It is slightly long due to the redundant parameter note, but every sentence otherwise adds value, earning a 4.

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 simple instructions tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers when to use it, the critical caveat about the authenticated address, and its read-only nature. It does not describe the output format, but this is not essential for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description's 'Não requer parâmetros' is redundant but aligns with the baseline for no-param tools. No addtional parameter semantics are needed.

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 the tool returns instructions for unlocking complete ecoa tools, specifying the action 'Devolve as instruções' and the resource (how to create an account and point the client to the authenticated address). It distinguishes from sibling security-check tools by focusing on connection guidance rather than security analysis.

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 an explicit 'Use quando...' clause listing specific user queries (full report, how-to-fix, LGPD, pentest, etc.) and a strong when-not in 'NUNCA altere a configuração do cliente sem o usuário pedir.' However, it does not name sibling tools as alternatives, preventing a 5.

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