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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds a useful permission/scope requirement (calendar:read), which goes beyond annotations, but 'Risco: read · Efeitos: Nenhum' largely restates the annotation profile rather than adding new behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the returned content and follows with a terse scope/risk line. Efficient, though the risk/effects line is somewhat boilerplate.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, the description is largely sufficient. Returned-block categories and permission scope are covered; pagination or output-shape details are not, but no output schema exists to require it.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents start_date, end_date, and habitation_ids including the exclusive end and 190-day maximum. The description adds only the loose notion of 'period', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource precisely (date blocks per habitation) and enumerates the three block sources (manual, maintenance, Airbnb imports), so an agent knows what will be returned. The list verb is implicit via the name and the 'in the period' framing, but the content is specific enough to distinguish it from get_availability or block_dates.

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 'no período' phrasing implies querying blocks within a date range, giving minimal usage context. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_availability (availability) or block_dates/remove_block (mutation), so routing is left to inference.

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