Análise estruturada de uma reunião

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the output is model interpretation (Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite), tone and factors are subjective and should be cross-checked. It does not mention latency or cost of the AI call, which would have made it 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the analysis contains before the verification guidance. Dense but every clause carries information; the model name is arguably dispensable but minor.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still summarizes the analysis contents. Trust caveats and sibling routing are covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter 'reuniao' is documented in the schema as the meeting number. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., valid range or where to obtain the number), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: an AI-generated analysis of a meeting minute, enumerating exactly what it returns (decisão, tom, fatores, riscos, orientação futura, parágrafos citados). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like ler_ata (raw text) and listar_reunioes (official numbers).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use ler_ata to verify the interpretation against the source minute, and use listar_reunioes for official numbers (Selic before/after, change). It states both the tool's role and the alternatives for adjacent needs.

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