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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: it uses the official Agger validator, does not persist anything, returns invalid/required fields, and reveals how omitting vs providing 'dados' changes behavior. This fully discloses the tool's side-effect-free nature and output intent.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the most important safety qualifier ('SEM CRIAR NADA') front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information about purpose, return value, or invocation strategy.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return behavior, and both usage modes. The main gap is that 'secao' is not explicitly connected to 'etapa', and the expected format of 'dados' is not clarified, but the tool remains callable with reasonable inference from the schema enums.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'dados' behavior well and maps 'ramo' to the branch being quoted, but it never explicitly names the 'secao' parameter, even though 'etapa' likely refers to it. This leaves one parameter under-documented and forces the agent to infer the mapping.

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 states a specific verb ('Valida'), resource ('dados de uma etapa de cotação por ramo'), and explicitly clarifies it creates nothing. It clearly distinguishes this validation tool from any creation or persistence flow, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit call patterns: call without 'dados' to discover requirements, or with 'dados' to validate before quoting. It does not name an alternative tool, but the usage modes are clear enough that an agent knows when to invoke it. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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