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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is 'curto e neutro' (a static explanatory reference), but says nothing about the shape of the response or whether the coverage section is conditional on data availability.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a dense but scannable topic list; every item is substantive rather than filler. The closing clause about coverage is the only piece that arguably does not earn its place given the dedicated sibling.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what is returned and what the optional 'ano' does; it does neither. For a read-only reference tool the gaps are moderate rather than fatal, but the unexplained parameter and the unaddressed overlap with eleicoes_cobertura leave real ambiguity.

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% for the single optional parameter 'ano', and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether 'ano' filters the glossary, scopes the coverage section, or is ignored — the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 enumerates the topics it explains (boletim de urna, log de urna, código de carga, fuso, biometria, SHA-256), which conveys that it is a reference/glossary resource. However, it never states the action plainly (e.g. 'returns definitions for') and its closing claim that it 'mostra também a cobertura do acervo' blurs the line with the sibling eleicoes_cobertura without acknowledging the overlap.

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 statement of when to call this versus eleicoes_cobertura, eleicoes_verificar_hash, or eleicoes_totais, all of which touch the same vocabulary/coverage area. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage from the topic list alone.

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