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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: it is free but limited use ('Gratuito (uso limitado)'), it uses transient reactance X'd, and parameters like cable dimensions affect the voltage drop. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that packs substantial detail without wordiness. It uses parentheses to list parameter details efficiently. Could be slightly more structured, but it remains clear and concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., voltage sag percentage or a report). It mentions 'ΔV' but does not specify output format. For a complex tool with 15 parameters, this gap reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining many parameters: modo, XR, cabo_mm2, cabo_m, dv_limite_pct, motor_fp_rotor_bloqueado. However, required parameters tensao_V and Sn_kVA are not explicitly defined, relying on the title and context.

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 tool calculates transient voltage sag during a load step on a generator group per ISO 8528-5, with two modes (block and motor). It differentiates from siblings like partida_motor and calcular_curto_circuito by focusing on generator response to load steps.

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 explains the two operating modes (block and motor) and key parameters like dv_limite_pct for class G4. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of generator load step is clear from the description and siblings.

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