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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds value by enumerating the exact KPIs returned, but it does not disclose behavior around the optional empresaId filter, data freshness, or return envelope, though this is less critical given the read-only hint.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then lists the specific KPIs. No filler or redundant wording; every part 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 tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description lists the key result elements, which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it does not clarify how empresaId affects the results or how this KPI view relates to the broader dashboard/metrics sibling tools, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% – the single optional parameter empresaId is already described as 'ID da empresa'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retorna' (returns) plus the resource 'indicadores-chave de conciliação' and enumerates the exact KPIs (contas ativas, sessões concluídas, taxa de automação, exceções pendentes, sessões recentes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform reconciliation actions (e.g., reconciliation_approve_match, reconciliation_execute) or list raw data (e.g., reconciliation_list_exceptions).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like dashboard_executivo, metricas_escritorio, or reconciliation_list_exceptions. The usage is implied by the KPI-focused title and description, but there are no stated criteria, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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