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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the two denominator file sources, the year-dependent age granularity constraints, and the response behavior including population_source and the warning when files are mixed. This is rich contextual behavior not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and all details about data sources and age constraints are relevant. However, the long parenthetical about the two deno minator files and pre-2000 age limits is dense and could be more cleanly structured without losing information.

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 10-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description supplies the most important missing context: where denominators come from, how age filtering behaves differently across years, and what output signals are included. There are no significant gaps for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying rate_per configurability, the exact age_min/age_max constraints for pre-2000 years, and the relationship between year and denominator source. It does not need to re-explain each parameter.

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 specific operation: 'Calcula taxas de internação por população (por 100.000 habitantes, configurável)', which distinguishes it from count-based sibling tools like get_hospitalizations. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

It gives clear context about when this tool applies: it computes population-based rates and relies on denominator files selected via get_available_years.population_years. It also clarifies age-filter limitations before 2000, but stops short of explicitly stating when-not-to-use or naming alternative tools.

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