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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the returned field set, that nonexistent ids return encontrado=false, that full text is unavailable here, and a prompt-injection caveat about third-party content.

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-loaded with purpose, then return fields, limits, and the injection warning; each clause adds real information. Slightly verbose, and repeating the id format under "Args" is partly redundant with the schema, but no meaningful waste.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: id format, return contents, the not-found signal, and the boundary that full text lives elsewhere. Nothing material 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% and there is exactly one parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does add format meaning (UUID, with or without hyphens) that the schema does not express, though it does not explain the 64-character max length constraint.

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 ("Abre um item da base do IA.med pelo id") and locates the id's origin in the sibling tools listar_recentes and buscar, which implicitly separates this single-item fetch from their list/search role. An agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly signals the usage context by naming where the id comes from (listar_recentes or buscar) and warning that full article/class text lives in the app via link_app, i.e. this tool is not for full-text retrieval. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent/openWorld) by disclosing ranking behavior (title outweighs resumo, recency boost), accent- and plural-insensitivity, stopword-like exclusions, and a prompt-injection warning about third-party content. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by ranking/behavior notes, then a clearly delimited Args block and a safety note. Length is justified because the schema provides no parameter descriptions, and each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

Covers scope, ranking semantics, every parameter with bounds, pagination, and prompt-injection safety. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet it still mentions that items carry link_app and fonte for downstream use.

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 carries the full burden and does so: it documents all six parameters, including value ranges (tema 2-200, dias 1-3650, limite 1-30, pagina 1-20), the full tipos enum with the "empty means all" default, and examples for tema. Only especialidade is left slightly vague (no format or example values).

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 ("Busca na base do IA.med") plus the exact fields searched ("título, resumo e tags"), so the agent knows this is a topic-search tool. The contrast with the sibling listar_recentes is implicit through "como em listar_recentes", which frames this as search rather than recency listing.

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 description implies when to use it (topic search with optional filters) and explains that empty filter values widen the search, but it never explicitly routes the agent between buscar, listar_recentes and abrir_item. No when-not guidance or alternative-selection criteria are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: newest-to-oldest ordering, future events/conferences included up to `dias` ahead, the `total`-vs-page distinction, the `tem_mais` pagination signal, and a prompt-injection warning about third-party content.

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-loaded with purpose, then a structured Args block. It is longer than typical but every section (ordering, return fields, per-param semantics, safety note) earns its place; only the return-field enumeration mildly overlaps the output schema.

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 6-param paginated listing tool with no required args, the description covers defaults context (dias window, limite/pagina bounds), pagination semantics, field contents, and a safety caveat. With an output schema and annotations already present, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 carries the full burden and does: it explains every one of the six params, expands the `tipos` enum (including that episodio=podcast and repo=code repository), and clarifies that escopo applies only to news/eventos/conferências and that few items carry especialidade.

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 ("Lista") plus resource ("o que saiu de mais recente na base do IA.med sobre IA na medicina") and scope. It also names the sibling abrir_item (for more detail) and buscar (for topic search), so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 conditional routing: use abrir_item for the full item, and "se vier pouco, use buscar com o tema" when specialty filtering yields few results. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use statement (e.g., browse-by-recency vs. keyword search), so it is clear context but not a full when/when-not matrix.

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