Carga da equipe e quem está sem demanda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the 92-day maximum period and the explicit highlighting of people without demand. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing specific output highlights and a constraint not evident from schema or annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise, using three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core outputs, the second highlights the unique 'without demand' feature and its use case, and the third gives a specific limit. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has no filler or tautology.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one required) and the presence of readOnly and destructiveHint annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the output conceptually (open, delayed, completed, estimated hours, and idle people), mentions the key limitation (92-day max period), and the required project parameter is evident from the schema. No output schema is present, but the description adequately covers what the user can expect.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by stating 'Período máximo de 92 dias' (maximum period of 92 days), which imposes a constraint on the 'from' and 'to' parameters not present in the schema. This enriches parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Quanto cada pessoa tem em aberto, quanto atrasou, quanto concluiu no período e quantas horas estimadas carrega' (how much each person has open, delayed, completed, and estimated hours). It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the unique feature 'Quem está SEM DEMANDA aparece explicitamente' (who is without demand appears explicitly), answering a specific question ('quem posso acionar agora?'). This is a specific verb+resource+scope description.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it answers the question 'quem posso acionar agora?' (who can I reach out to now?), indicating a use case for finding idle team members. It mentions a period limit of 92 days, which is relevant for selecting appropriate time ranges. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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