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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 'incerta' outcome for unproven conditions, lists the return fields (source, verifiedAt, verificationId, pageHash), and explicitly states the public-page requirement. This gives a reliable baseline of expected behavior.

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 two sentences: the first gives the purpose and scope, the second summarizes the return values and key ambiguity rule. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description properly explains what will be returned per condition and the overall result semantics. It leaves some minor aspects unstated (e.g., exact format of proof text, behavior on unreachable pages), but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool and interpret the result.

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 100%, so each parameter (url, contexto, condicoes) already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds little beyond restating the 1–10 condition count and the public/HTTP restriction, which are also present in the schema. This sits at the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb (testar), a specific resource (página HTTP/HTTPS pública), and the expected output (confirmada, rejeitada, incerta). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like analisar_url and consultar_ia by focusing on explicit condition verification rather than general analysis or AI consultation.

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 opens with 'Use para', giving immediate situational context: test 1 to 10 explicit conditions on a public page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to prefer this over the sibling tools.

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