Glossário

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description only needs to add content-level context — which it does by listing the term categories. It says nothing about the shape, length, or language of the returned definitions, leaving the agent to discover that on invocation.

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 first front-loads what is covered, the second gives the trigger condition. The trailing '…' efficiently signals the term list is illustrative rather than exhaustive, and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter glossary with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient — the agent knows what terms and when to call it. Only the absence of any signal about return content or relationship to the other guide tools keeps it from being complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface to explain and the description correctly spends no words on one. The listed term families give an implicit sense of the lookup scope the tool will resolve.

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 ('Define os termos') and enumerates the exact concept families covered — WABA, Phone Number ID, Usuário do Sistema, janela de 24h, tier — so an agent knows the tool's scope without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from conceptual siblings like wa_guide_overview or wa_guide_search, which could plausibly answer similar questions.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use quando o usuário misturar IDs ou conceitos', which is the exact situation an agent would be in after a confusing diagnostic. No when-not conditions or named alternatives are provided, despite overlapping guide tools in the sibling set.

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