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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior; the description adds value by disclosing return semantics: unfilled fields come as `null`, nonexistent id returns an error, and `videoUrl` is `null` when no YouTube embed exists. It also enumerates the status enum values.

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 front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and its long return-field list is dense and purposeful. It is slightly long for a single-parameter read operation, partially overlapping what an output schema would already carry, but it contains no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the source of the id, error and null behavior, statuses, return fields, and the alternative listing tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 lone `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema as an integer sourced from senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos. The description reinforces where to obtain the id before calling, adding complementary guidance beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Obtém o detalhe completo de um evento interativo do e-Cidadania.' It also separates itself from the listing sibling by naming the richer payload (pauta, convidados, videoUrl), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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 tells the agent to first obtain `id` via senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos and explicitly says not to use this tool for simple listing/ranking. This is fully actionable routing guidance.

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