audit_support_register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it runs without AutoCAD and reports without inferences, which tells the agent results are deterministic and server-side. It says nothing about output shape, but an output schema exists, so the gap is minor.

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-loads the purpose, then sections WHEN TO USE, parameters, and a concrete example, with no filler sentences. Well organized and appropriately sized, though the last line about AutoCAD could be folded in more tightly.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema presumably covering the return format, the description only needs to add scoping and usage, which it does via the when-to-use clause, parameter notes, and a worked example. Adequate for a read-only audit tool; only cross-tool disambiguation 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 must carry the load, and it largely does: it explains that snapshot must be complete, that allowed_types/expected_tags come from the project, and it supplies a limit range (1..500) that the schema does not constrain. Only the snapshot's internal field/filter structure is left undocumented, keeping it from a 5.

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 and resource (audits support-register TAGs) and enumerates the exact checks performed: duplicate TAGs, empty fields, expected register, and totals per line/type. It distinguishes itself from dimensioning tools via 'não dimensiona suportes', but never names the audit-family siblings (snapshot_support_register, compare_support_register, dxf_audit), so an agent must still guess which audit tool applies.

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?

The 'QUANDO USAR' block gives an explicit condition (register QA before delivery or Excel import) plus a negative boundary ('não dimensiona suportes'). It is clear context, but it stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it falls just below the routing-explicit 5.

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