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

Even with readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds rich behavioral detail: it tries active UASGs first, retries inactive ones because the upstream rejects 'ambas', marks extinct UASGs with ativa:false, and has a 24h cache. It also discloses the restoration status. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and output, then adds behavior and cache details in a compact, well-separated structure. Each paragraph earns its place; the restoration note is operational context that helps explain reliability.

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?

With a single documented parameter and annotations covering safety/idempotence, the description supplies everything else needed to call the tool appropriately: return contents, active/inactive fallback, cache, and why it was restored. The output schema further covers return shape.

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 schema already fully documents codigo_uasg ('Código numérico da UASG') at 100% coverage. The description adds usage context about resolving the code before filtered queries but no additional format, range, or interdependency semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific action and target ('Consulta uma UASG específica pelo código') and the next sentence enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's function concrete. This is clearly distinct from the list-style sibling compras_uasg_listar and from broader search tools.

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 gives an explicit use case ('Útil para resolver codigo_uasg antes de consultas filtradas') and points to compras_uasg_listar for diagnosing a 404 issue. It does not explicitly state when to prefer compras_uasg_buscar over this tool, so it lacks full exclusion/alternative guidance.

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