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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like result ordering, pagination, or any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 (one-sentence summary followed by modes) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the list of axes is lengthy and could potentially be moved to the schema enum for better structure.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and modes. It lacks details on return format or limitations, but is sufficient for basic 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by enumerating the possible values for the 'eixo' parameter (e.g., por-classe, por-regiao), which is not present in the schema. This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's generic description.

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 searches 105 statistical facts and lists specific modes (free text, by axis, by persona_id). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'filtrar_personas' or 'get_personas', which could cause ambiguity.

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 clear context on when to use each mode (texto, eixo, persona_id), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'avaliar_pergunta' or 'get_personas'.

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