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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context by specifying that the tool computes a score with four named indicators, giving the agent a clear picture of expected behavior. It does not contradict the annotation, and the extra detail about the score calculation goes beyond what the annotation alone provides.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, the target, and the output. Every element is meaningful: the score range, the indicators list, and the calculation intent. There is no verbose filler or repetition of the tool name, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a 0-100 score plus indicator names). However, it does not mention how to interpret the score, whether the default empresaId=0 refers to the current company, or any potential error conditions, leaving a small gap in completeness given the absence of an output schema.

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 covers 100% of the parameter documentation (empresaId with description 'ID da empresa'), and the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Since the schema already explains the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description does not enhance or clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Calcula') and resource ('score de saúde financeira da empresa'), plus the output range (0-100) and key indicators (liquidez, inadimplência, margem, compliance). This distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like dashboard_executivo or consultar_dre, which focus on broader metrics rather than a single composite health score.

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 implies the tool is for assessing overall financial health, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as consultar_saldo, fluxo_caixa_projetado, or metricas_escritorio. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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