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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: it returns raw fields rather than a verdict, and does not perform OCR on photos. It says nothing about what happens when both lookup paths are supplied, or about the batch `itens` path.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then lookup methods, then the key caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema tool with a nested `itens` array, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from it that `itens` batches multiple sections, what `ano`/`turno` mean, or what the returned field-by-field structure looks like.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It covers uf, municipio, zona, secao and codigo_carga only by naming the lookup route; `ano`, `turno` (1/2 enum) and especially the nested `itens` array are never explained, leaving the batch capability invisible.

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 and resource: returns the official ballot (boletim de urna) for a section, field by field, for comparison against a printed copy. The comparison framing distinguishes it from generic lookup siblings like eleicoes_consultar_secao, though it never names an alternative 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?

Gives two concrete lookup routes (código de carga on the paper, or UF + município + zona + seção), which tells the agent how to invoke it. It also supplies an explicit exclusion — 'Não lê foto' — clarifying the caller must perform the comparison. No sibling alternative is named, keeping it 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.