Esperar o codigo chegar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the polling interval (5s), timeout default/max (60/300), the ~20 min validity of the number, the retry semantics, and the true/false return flag. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but for this operation the behavioral profile is largely complete.

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 dense sentences: the polling/timeout behavior is front-loaded, followed by the return and retry guidance. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description reasonably summarizes the return (the activation with codigo_chegou true/false), plus retry and alternative paths. Slightly more detail on the full return shape would make it fully complete, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the 60s default and 300 max from the schema without adding format or syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 behavior: polls the activation every 5s until the code arrives or time runs out. It also names siblings (resend_sms, cancel_activation) as alternatives, so an agent can distinguish this blocking-wait tool from the fire-and-check siblings.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('if it hasn't arrived, call again') and names the two alternatives. It doesn't spell out the exact conditions that favor resend_sms over re-calling this tool, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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