guard_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact not in the annotations: calling with no argument returns a list of available codes, and output is in plain Portuguese. No detail on error handling for an invalid code.

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 padding. The core action and its output are front-loaded, and the no-argument fallback behavior is appended where it belongs. Every clause earns its place.

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, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers enough: it says what the return content looks like and what happens without a code. Only the invalid-code case and the language/format scope are left implicit.

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% and the single optional param has no schema-level documentation, so the description must carry it. It does supply a concrete example value ('tracker-sem-consentimento'), which anchors the expected format, but it does not say whether the code is required for a single-finding explanation or what happens with an unrecognized code.

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 specific verb and resource ('Explica ... um achado de conformidade') and even enumerates the output content (what it is, why it matters, LGPD relevance, remediation). It is clearly distinct from the check/scan/generate siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to reinforce the separation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: call it with a finding_code to explain one finding, or with no argument to discover available codes. That implicit hint is useful, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance and no mention of when an explanation is warranted versus re-running a check.

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