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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the whole burden. It correctly frames the tool as a read-only aggregation, giving a useful conceptual model and a hint at the pivot mechanism and filters. However, it says nothing about the shape of the returned table, how the default ordering works, or that limits of 50/500 apply — all of which the agent only discovers from the schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first establishes data scope and the pivot mechanics, the second gives usage and an example. Nothing is repeated redundantly from the schema, and the most important framing comes first.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested filtros object, optional column pivoting, and no output schema, an agent still has to guess what the resulting table looks like and how results are ordered or truncated. The description also does not note that both 1st and 2nd round data can be combined. Adequate but with real gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 86%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a 4 by explaining how linhas, colunas, medida and filtros combine into a pivot layout — the conceptual relationship that a flat enum schema does not convey on its own. It still leaves filtered-value syntax and ordering semantics ("ordem": "nome") to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Tabela dinâmica sobre as eleições de 2026") and then explains the mechanical operation (agrega uma medida por uma dimensão nas linhas e, opcionalmente, outra nas colunas, com filtros), which goes beyond the vague name "explorar". It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool (valores_dimensao, buscar_candidatos), so a 5 is not warranted.

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 rankings, comparações e cruzamentos" plus a concrete example (votos por partido em cada UF) gives an agent a clear sense of when to reach for this tool. It stops short of the higher bar because it never excludes scenarios or points to a sibling (e.g. when to use valores_dimensao instead).

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