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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating freshness.status values and describing what happens when status is stale, including per-year listing of revised, regenerated, removed, or new partitions. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 core result is front-loaded in the first clause, and every later detail about freshness statuses and era-dependent fields is relevant to interpreting the returned data. However, the description is a dense single paragraph with many semicolons and parentheticals; bulleted structure would improve readability without adding length.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent metadata tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers year availability, freshness states, stale-partition behavior, and per-year era differences. No additional facts about authentication, rate limits, side effects, or parameters are necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description correctly focuses on output semantics and does not invent or omit parameter guidance.

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 the specific resource and scope: available years in the loaded SIH-SUS data plus cube freshness relative to the healthbr-data mirror. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_hospitalizations or get_icsap, which retrieve data rather than metadata. The verb 'Retorna' makes the read-only retrieval intent explicit.

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 when to use the tool (whenever year availability or cube freshness is needed) but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing statements, so usage guidance is only inferred from the stated purpose.

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