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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds what they cannot: operator-only access via METRICS_TOKEN, disclosure that responses contain addresses (sensitive data), and a retention window where rows vanish after `retention_days`. That is meaningful operational context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the auth constraint. Slight redundancy between 'com endereço' and 'traz endereço', but nothing wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys the critical return characteristic (addresses are included) plus auth and retention. It leaves the response shape and pagination behavior only partially implied, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 schema already documents `ok`, `limit` (including the silent 50-item cap) and `channel_id`. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 resource (raw per-channel play reports including the client address) and scope (single channel), and contrasts itself with both the public panel and the health endpoint that 'never returns IP'. An agent can distinguish it from channel_health without opening either schema.

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?

'Use para investigar um canal específico' gives a clear investigative context, and it explicitly positions itself against the public panel as the reason for its separate existence. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative tool or a when-not condition for report_play.

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