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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds behavioral context: formulas, dependency on upstream impedance, and 'Gratuito (uso limitado)' indicating usage limits. It does not elaborate on output format, but the core read-only behavior is well supported.

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 dense paragraph without clear structure or bullet points. It conveys much information but could be more concise or organized. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the technical details could be streamlined.

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 17 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most critical aspects but does not explain the output (e.g., pass/fail or numeric result) nor all parameters. It adequately addresses the tool's core functionality for an agent but lacks full 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining key parameters: situacao, R_montante_ohm, X_montante_ohm, circuito_tipo, secao_pe_mm2, and the TN/TT parameter choices. However, it omits several parameters like T_op, comprimento_m, and secao_fase_mm2, leaving gaps.

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's purpose: 'Verifica a proteção contra choque por seccionamento automático' (verifies protection against shock by automatic disconnection) with reference to NBR 5410. This verb+resource is specific and distinct from sibling tools like calcular_curto_circuito which focuses on short-circuit current magnitude.

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 usage context by explaining the two system types (TN and TT) with required parameters and conditions. It warns about the optimistic result without upstream impedance. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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