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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (score/rating and main complaint topics), but does not disclose further behavioral details such as response shape, freshness of data, or whether any prior authentication is required.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the tool's purpose with practical examples of the returned indicators. No wasted words or redundant material.

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 parameterless, read-only reputation tool, the description provides adequate context for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not detail the exact output structure, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is relatively straightforward.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter meaning to add beyond the empty schema, and the description correctly identifies a parameterless reputation query.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('Indicadores de reputação da sua empresa no Reclame Aqui') and specifies what will be returned (nota/rating and principais problemas reclamados). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reclameaqui_listar_reclamacoes and reclameaqui_responder by focusing on reputation indicators rather than listing complaints, inspecting a specific complaint, or responding.

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?

Usage context is implied: the agent can infer it should use this tool when needing company reputation indicators instead of individual complaints. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reclameaqui_listar_reclamacoes or provide exclusions.

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