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

The description says the tool discards cache and forces regeneration, which is a state-changing operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is an annotation contradiction. Although it adds useful non-effects and quota details, the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and usage trigger. The quota warning earns its place. Minor typo ('regerar' for 'regenerar') and slightly run-on first sentence keep it from a 5.

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?

The description covers purpose, trigger, non-effects, and quota, but with no output schema and no parameter semantics, it leaves the agent guessing about inputs, return value, and how to confirm the cache was regenerated.

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 coverage is 0% and the description gives no parameter-level detail. 'Período' loosely relates to data_inicio/data_fim and the tool name relates to account, but an agent cannot tell the expected date formats, which account identifier to provide, or optionality from the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Força a Stone a regerar o arquivo de conciliação') and names the exact resource and side effect (discarding the cached extract). It also gives a concrete trigger condition, distinguishing this cache-refresh tool from the other stone_vendas_* siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use quando os números não baterem com o painel da Stone') and warns against repeated sequential calls because of rate-limit quota. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use map.

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