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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it is a calculation tool (no side effects), free with limited use, and explains that SWBP is zero without bends. This goes beyond the annotation's read-only hint.

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 front-loads the main outputs, then explains key parameter constraints. While it includes some extraneous details (e.g., 'Gratuito (uso limitado)'), the overall structure is efficient for the information provided.

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?

Given 16 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the calculation purpose and a few parameters, but fails to describe the output format, all conventions, or provide examples. It is moderately complete but leaves gaps for complex usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers some (e.g., n_cabos, curvas_graus, attachment, convencao, swbp_classe, cabo_classe) but neglects required parameters like secao_mm2, material, od_mm, peso_kg_m, duto_D_mm, comprimento_m. This leaves significant gaps for parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes cable pulling traction per IEEE 1185/525, listing four specific outputs (tração no cabrestante, SWBP, ocupação do duto, tração máxima admissível). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calcular_curto_circuito or dimensionar_cabo, which handle different electrical calculations.

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 usage through its technical content (e.g., mentioning that SWBP governs and is zero without bends), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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