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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that owner data is not live ('NAO e uma chamada on-chain ao vivo'), that the tool is a free historical archive, and lists the included fields (owner_ultima_leitura, owner_verificado_em, owner_estado). It could additionally clarify output format, but for a catalog tool this is sufficient.

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 single, dense paragraph but remains well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then adds limitations, data fields, and a pointer to an alternative. Every clause adds value, though it could be slightly more succinct.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the exact collection size, its historical/free status, the non-live nature of owner data, available fields, direct links to marketplaces, and a clear alternative for live checks. No critical context 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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, so this score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it is a catalog of 65 specific NFT pieces, presented as a historical free archive. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is not licensable and that live on-chain confirmation should be done via nft_owner_atual.

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 explicit usage guidance: for immediate on-chain confirmation of a specific token, use nft_owner_atual; for licensing matters, refer to licenca_formal. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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