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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the response covers both the registration record and a semi-annual series of glosa and payment data. It implies a read-only consultation ('Consulta'), but does not state permissions, data freshness, or whether the semestral series can be empty.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns, when to use, when not to use, with no filler. The scope statement is front-loaded before the routing guidance.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema already defining return shape, the description covers purpose, data retrieved, and the routing decision, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is that the alternative tool for name search is described but not named.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place explaining it — 'pelo registro ANS' identifies registro_ans as the ANS registration number. However, it adds no format detail (the 5-6 digit pattern lives only in the schema) and does not say whether leading zeros matter or what happens with an unregistered number.

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 ('Consulta') and resource ('cadastro e a série semestral de glosa e pagamento de uma operadora na ANS'), defining scope beyond a mere lookup. The 'quando não usar' clause explicitly separates it from name-based operator search, which is what siblings like operadora_lookup do.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use ('para conhecer uma operadora pelo registro ANS') and when-not-to-use ('para buscar operadoras por nome'), a clear positive/negative routing rule. It stops short of naming the actual sibling tool (e.g. operadora_lookup), so the agent must infer which tool handles name searches.

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