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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the underlying endpoint path, the 15-minute cache behavior, and the semantic content of the response in terms of demand and legal limits.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by endpoint traceability, use-case interpretation, and cache behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool has full schema documentation, a clear output schema, and annotations covering safety profile. The description adds the remaining context an agent needs: what the tool returns, why that matters, and a cache freshness caveat. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. It correctly leaves parameter details to the schema and only adds domain-level context about ARP adhesions, which is useful but not required for parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lista adesões (caronas) já realizadas a uma ARP'. It clarifies the output ('quem aderiu e com que quantidade') and distinguishes its focus from sibling tools like saldo_item or unidades_item by emphasizing demand and remaining legal adhesion limits.

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 description makes the use context clear: use when you need to see which entities adhered to an ARP and in what quantities, and to assess demand level or remaining adhesion capacity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is well implied.

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