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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, so the agent already knows the tool can be destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that the report is saved in company history, which implies a write operation. However, it does not disclose what specific destructive effects might occur (e.g., overwriting existing reports) or any other side effects. Since the annotation covers the safety profile and the description adds some context, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's core function and outcome. There is no wasted wording or redundant information, making it efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, 3 required) and the abundance of similar report-related siblings, the description lacks context on when to use it, what the report is for, and what happens after saving. The absence of an output schema also means the description should explain the return behavior, but it does not. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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 input schema describes all four parameters (titulo, conteudo, tipo, empresaId) with 100% coverage, including an enum for 'tipo'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it relies on the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 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 the verb 'Gera' (generates) and the resource 'relatório estruturado de análise (agent report)', making the core action clear. It also distinguishes itself by noting the report is 'salvo no histórico da empresa' (saved in company history), which separates it from tools that simply send or display reports. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enviar_relatorio_email' or 'gerar_insight_cliente'. There are no explicit context signals, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions. This is essentially a single-purpose statement without usage direction.

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