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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the required scope (connections:manage), the risk class (read), that there are no side effects, and that the call may be unavailable under the current authorization. That availability caveat is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, though the return shape is only sketched ('ator responsável, próximas ações').

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?

Main capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the scope/risk/availability metadata separated after a line break. The trailing 'INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização' reads like injected status boilerplate, which slightly muddies an otherwise tight definition.

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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is reported, which stages are covered, what accompanies the answer, and the authorization precondition. Nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated stages describe the return content rather than inputs, which is appropriate here.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: current state of the assisted configuration, and enumerates the covered domains (instalação, pareamento, login, mapeamento, sincronização), so an agent knows exactly what surface it reports on. It stops short of naming or contrasting with the obvious sibling start_onboarding, which keeps it from 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to start_onboarding and related to get_connection_status, but no sentence says when to call it versus those alternatives, or when it should not be called. The scope line is a permission caveat, not selection guidance.

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