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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Busca" and "exato" imply a read-only, exact-match lookup (no fuzzy results), which is useful signal, and the output schema covers the return shape. However, nothing is said about permission requirements, how tabela or include_expired alter the result set, or what an unmatched code returns.

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 clauses, zero filler, with the exact-match scope front-loaded before the when-to-use/when-not guidance. Every sentence 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves three optional parameters and all behavioral caveats undocumented, which is a real gap for an agent building a correct call.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. "Vigência" hints at the role of the data parameter, but tabela and include_expired (which materially change which codes are returned) are never explained.

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?

"Busca um código TUSS exato" gives a specific verb (busca) plus a precise scope qualifier (exato), which is exactly what distinguishes it from the fuzzy/description-based sibling tuss_search. The differentiation is stated in the text itself, so an agent never needs to open the schema to tell the two apart.

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 uses an explicit "Quando usar / Quando não usar" pair: use it to look up a code or its validity, do not use it for description-based search. Both the positive trigger and the exclusion route the agent to the correct sibling (tuss_search).

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