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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it doesn't say what contact fields come back (email, phone, address) or whether the result is stable/may be empty for some slugs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though it is also arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and annotations, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description could have clarified what 'contato' actually returns, which is the main remaining gap.

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% with a single enum-constrained 'company' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'da empresa' merely echoes the parameter without adding format or selection guidance, matching the baseline 3 for schema-heavy definitions.

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 specific verb+resource ('Retorna o contato oficial da empresa'), which is distinct from siblings like get_faq or get_policies. However, it does not name or contrast with any sibling, so the differentiation is only inferable from the noun 'contato'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus get_company, get_faq, or get_policies. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing information is provided; the agent must infer that this returns contact details rather than general company data.

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