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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful traits beyond that: a 15-minute validity window and the fact that no API call is re-issued. Return format and error behavior remain unstated, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and operational details (TTL, path syntax, pagination) follow. Slightly terse rather than overly verbose, and every sentence adds information.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts an agent needs: what the tool returns (fields/pages of an existing result), the TTL, path navigation syntax, and pagination size. Nothing critical to calling it correctly 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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does partially compensate: 'caminho vazio para a raiz; nomes de campos e indices numericos' explains caminho, and 'paginas de ate 100 itens' maps to the limite/pagina bounds. But resultadoId, the distinction between limite and pagina, and path-depth limits are never explained, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 specific verb (ler/read) and resource (fields and pages of an already-obtained result), plus the key scope constraint 'ja obtido pela mesma conta, sem repetir a chamada da API'. An agent can understand exactly what this does. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but its purpose is distinct enough from the API-calling tools around it.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('read a result already obtained by the same account, without repeating the API call') and a validity window, which implies when it is and isn't appropriate. However, it names no explicit alternative (e.g. re-issuing the original search tool) and states no exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than spelled out.

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