Sortear questão

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — the returned question comes "sem gabarito" (no answer key) — which explains why the follow-up call to `obter_resposta` is needed. It says nothing about behavior when filters match nothing, which keeps it from 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 short sentences: the core action first, then the required follow-up. No filler, and the most important constraint (no answer key) sits immediately after the action.

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 zero-required-parameter random draw with full schema documentation and read-only annotations, the description covers what is drawn, what is withheld (the answer), and the next step. Only edge behavior (no matching questions) is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 100%: anos, tema, idioma and disciplina are each documented in the schema, including the empty-means-all convention and the enum for idioma. The description adds no additional meaning about how filters are applied, 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?

"Sorteia uma questão" gives a specific verb (random draw) plus resource (question), which distinguishes it from siblings like listar_provas, buscar_questoes or obter_questao that retrieve by explicit criteria. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"para praticar" establishes the use case (practice/study), and the description gives an explicit next step: use `obter_resposta` to check the answer. It does not state when to prefer this over buscar_questoes or obter_questao, and gives no exclusion conditions.

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