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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so 'Só leitura' is redundant. What adds real value is the disclosure that the lookup is gated on a two-identifier identity match and silently returns nothing otherwise — a privacy-driven failure mode the agent cannot infer from annotations or 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?

Two sentences, zero filler: purpose and returned fields first, then the access constraint and its rationale. Front-loaded and appropriately scoped for a two-parameter read.

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?

With no output schema, the description does name the return facets, and prerequisites plus the empty-result case are covered. A slightly richer return description (format/shape of each facet or the not-found message) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by explaining that the two parameters act together as an ownership check rather than as independent filters ('sem os dois não devolve nada, para não expor dados de terceiros'). It adds no format/syntax nuance (e.g. whether 'numero' is numeric OS or zero-padded).

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+resource ('Consulta o status de um pedido existente') and even enumerates the returned facets (produção, arte, rastreio, total), which distinguishes it from creation/quotation siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer when only one facet (e.g. prazo or requisitos de arte) is needed.

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 a clear calling condition and a hard prerequisite: both 'numero' and 'email' must match the purchase, otherwise nothing is returned. It does not explicitly route to alternatives like consultar_prazo or consultar_requisitos_arte, so the when-not-this-tool guidance is only implied.

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