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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behaviour: the panel is empty without community reports submitted via POST /api/play-report, and it explains that `geo` distinguishes regional restriction from general failure. That is real context beyond the 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 purpose and the outage-vs-block framing are front-loaded, then the return fields are enumerated compactly. It is dense but each clause carries information; only the long field-by-field enumeration makes it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key return paths (`geo`, `regions[]`, `latency[]`, `pra_voce`) and their meaning, and by disclosing the community-data prerequisite. It does not describe pagination or the top-level success-rate/failure-reason shape in detail, but for a single-ID read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter (`id`) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format or ID-source detail, which puts it at the baseline 3 for a single well-documented parameter.

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+resource: 'Saúde comunitária do canal' with success rate, failure reasons and affected environments, and it articulates the diagnostic distinction ('canal fora do ar' vs 'bloqueado no seu país'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools `health`, `geo` or `play_reports`, which sit in the same conceptual space.

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 is implied through the framing that this separates a global outage from a country-level block, which tells the agent why it would call this. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no 'use X instead when...', and the sibling `health` is never mentioned, so routing between them is left to inference.

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