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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Retorna' is consistent with that. It adds useful context about what data is returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, data freshness, or response behavior beyond the output schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, and the core resource is stated immediately after the verb.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the invocation essentials. It is not quite complete because it leaves when-to-use and sibling routing implicit, but nothing critical is missing for making the call.

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%, and the obra_id parameter already has a clear description: 'Identificador opcional da obra para filtragem analítica de centro de custo.' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the verb 'Retorna' and names a specific resource: an executive summary of financial health, cash flow, and cost centers for construction projects in FinGo. That is clear enough on its own, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like get_sinapi_info or search_plans.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over get_sinapi_info or search_plans, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is the optional obra_id filter, and the description itself gives no contextual direction.

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