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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: 'Conteúdo estável' signals the content changes rarely (useful caching/staleness cue) and 'com links para as páginas completas' discloses that the return contains references to fuller pages.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource name followed by the coverage list, which is the information an agent needs for selection. The topic enumeration is long but each item earns its place as a routing signal.

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 parameterless, read-only content-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what topics exist, that the content is stable, and that fuller pages are linked. Only the precise return shape is unspecified, which is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. No parameter meaning needs to be supplied, and the description does not falsely imply any filtering or query options.

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 names the resource (SignaBras policies) and enumerates the specific topics it covers (refund/warranty, issuance requirements, renewal, deadlines, payment methods, terms, privacy, contact), so an agent can tell it apart from the order/product siblings without opening a schema. The retrieval verb is only implied via the tool name rather than stated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic list: an agent can infer this is the source for policy questions. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when it is not appropriate, and no reference to any alternative (there is none, since siblings are all product/order tools) - so it stays at minimum viable.

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