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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds genuine context: no captcha, no payment, free submission, and a rate limit of one message every 10 s per network. This is useful operational detail an agent cannot infer from annotations. The rate-limit and submission facts apply to the downstream contact endpoint rather than this tool's own behavior, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loading is decent, but the negation clause is repeated: 'Não ativa streams... Não provisiona, não cobra e não ativa transmissão' says the same non-action twice. The submission instructions are useful but add length that partially duplicates the rate/no-captcha points.

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, zero-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-actions, submission channels, and rate limits — enough for correct invocation. It could say more about what the returned info/contacts actually contain, but annotations and schema already carry the safety and parameter burden.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'lang' enum, and its inline description already documents the pt/en/es/fr/de/hu values and the pt fallback. The main description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb+resource: it is an authorized-transmission offer that provides information and contacts for producers, without activating streams. It differentiates itself from siblings (legacy_stream, pricing, billing) via explicit negative scope ('não provisiona, não cobra, não ativa'), though it never names an alternative tool. What the tool positively returns (info/contacts) remains slightly abstract.

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 tells the agent exactly how to act: 'Use contact.form_url no browser, contact.email por e-mail ou POST /api/contact para apresentar o projeto.' It also clarifies when NOT to expect action (no stream activation, no provisioning, no charging). No sibling tool is named as an alternative, so it stops short of the top band.

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