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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Calcula' implies a non-destructive read-only computation and 'conferir a integridade' adds intent, but it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe auth requirements. Adequate but not fully disclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then clearly routing to when/when-not usage. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the purpose plus named alternative cover the essentials. Only the exact meaning of the 'epílogo' hash and the input format are left implicit.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'xml' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only implies the input is a TISS XML, which is largely inferable from the tool name and purpose. Adds little beyond the obvious.

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+resource: 'Calcula o hash do epílogo de um XML TISS'. This distinguishes it clearly from tiss_validate by scoping it to hash computation rather than content validation.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Quando usar' (check XML integrity) and 'Quando não usar' (to validate content) and names the correct alternative tiss_validate. This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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