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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real value by declaring the result fields (número, situação, data, tomador, valor, origem+id) and the fact that both local and portal-imported notes appear. It stays silent on the default page size and pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns before the filter list, and every clause carries information. Slightly dense packing of the return fields into one clause, but 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the result shape, which is the main thing an agent needs for a read-only listing. The remaining gap is pagination/limits (limite defaults to 20, max 50), which goes unmentioned.

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 only 25% (just busca is documented), yet the description spells out the accepted period values and the três situacao values, effectively covering 3 of 4 parameters. Only limite is left unexplained in both places.

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 (list issued notes) and pins down scope: local notes plus ones imported from the portal. It also enumerates the fields returned and names the origin+id pair that cancelar_nota consumes, which separates it from its siblings.

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 mention of the origin+id pair 'que cancelar_nota usa' implies the chaining pattern (list, then cancel), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over acompanhar_pedido or acompanhar_operacao, and no stated exclusions.

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