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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true contradicts the description's implication of a write action ('Encaminha um pedido'). The description adds behavioral context about not consuming calculation limits, but the contradiction reduces reliability.

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 concise (3 sentences) front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, required info, and special characteristic. No redundant text.

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 no output schema, the description explains the basic workflow and a key behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on return values, parameter descriptions for all fields, and prerequisites for using the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'Informe o e-mail de contato e o escopo', covering email and escopo, but omits nome, empresa, and api_key. With 5 parameters, this partial coverage is insufficient.

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 'Encaminha um pedido de ORÇAMENTO de estudo/laudo assinável com ART', specifying the verb (encaminhar/solicitar) and resource (orçamento de estudo/laudo). This distinctly separates it from sibling calculation tools like calcular_curto_circuito.

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 provides context for when to use: when needing a budget quote, especially noting 'funciona inclusive quando o uso gratuito do dia esgotou'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but sibling tools naturally provide alternatives for calculations.

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