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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by warning that section-level and time-level data can be incomplete and by reporting a last-sync freshness indicator, which is exactly the caveat an agent needs before acting on such data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core question ("Quanto do acervo existe") followed by the concrete counts and the freshness field. The second sentence is purely the usage caveat and nothing is redundant.

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?

Simple read-only tool with no output schema; the description still conveys what is reported (BU coverage, log coverage per UF, denominator, last sync) and the caveat about official totals. It could go further in describing the response shape or what happens when ano/turno are omitted, but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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% and the description never mentions 'ano' or 'turno', so nothing compensates for the bare schema. Both parameters are optional (required: 0) and the description gives no hint about defaults or about how 'turno' narrowing affects the coverage figures reported.

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 resource and metric: fraction of the TSE section universe that has a boletim de urna and a log de urna per UF, plus the last synchronization timestamp. It implicitly separates itself from the official-totals sibling by noting those totals do not depend on this coverage, but it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

"Use antes de tirar conclusão de dado por seção ou por horário" gives an explicit precondition for use, and the closing clause tells the agent one case where this tool is unnecessary (official disclosure totals). No named alternative tool is offered, so it stops short of a full routing instruction.

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