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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a link that expires in 24 h, a sha256 checksum, and a hard cap of 200k rows per export — useful for planning and for verifying the file. It does not say what happens when the cap is exceeded (error vs. truncation) or whether the export is synchronous, which matters for a large CSV job.

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 tight sentence establishes scope and geography, a second enumerates return values and the row cap, a third names the use case. Nothing redundant, and the scoping constraint leads.

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?

Return values, expiry and volume limit are covered without needing an output schema, but a 5-parameter export tool with zero parameter documentation leaves the agent to infer filtros/ano/turno semantics from another tool. The cap behavior and export timing are also unaddressed.

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 only 'uf' and 'municipio' get any treatment (the latter usefully flagged as optional). The 'filtros' array, 'ano' and 'turno' are undocumented in both schema and description; 'mesmo recorte de filtrar_secoes' is a pointer, not an explanation of what the filter objects accept.

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 precise verb+resource (export as complete CSV) and anchors scope by reference to the sibling eleicoes_filtrar_secoes ('mesmo recorte'), with the geographic unit (UF, optionally município) called out. An agent can tell instantly that this is the bulk-export counterpart of the interactive filter tool.

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 reference to filtrar_secoes implicitly routes interactive queries there and bulk exports here, and 'Para abrir no Excel ou no Python' names the intended consuming context. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or what to do with the returned link beyond opening it.

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