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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Busca' implies a read-only lookup, but the description discloses nothing about result limits, expiration handling, or whether the search is scoped by table/date – all of which exist as parameters. An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the use/avoid clauses are cleanly separated. It is arguably too terse given four undocumented parameters, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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?

A 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, zero annotations, and a behavioral flag as significant as include_expired receives no explanation anywhere. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe returns, but the input side is markedly under-specified.

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 5 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Only 'text' is loosely implied by 'por texto'; data, tabela, limite, and include_expired – including the non-obvious expired-code filtering – are left completely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Busca códigos TUSS por texto'), so an agent knows exactly what it does. However, it gives no differentiation from the sibling tuss_lookup, which by name appears to cover overlapping territory.

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' (locate procedures by description) and 'Quando não usar' (validate XML), which is genuine routing guidance. It does not name the alternative tool (e.g. tiss_validate) for the excluded case, leaving the agent to infer it.

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