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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the basic query action and does not mention behaviors like sensitive data handling, admin authorization requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. The schema parameter descriptions mention 'sensitive exige admin', but the description itself does not disclose these traits.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise for a simple get tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, lessening the need for the description to explain return values or parameter details. However, the description lacks context around sensitive data access and admin scoping, which are relevant given the 'sensitive' response profile. It also does not relate to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer placement. Overall, it is minimally adequate but not rich.

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?

The schema describes all parameters (100% coverage), including the id field as 'public_uid do registro' and the sensitive-related parameters. The description's mention of 'usando somente public_uid' simply reinforces the schema's id description without adding new meaning. The description adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Consulta um registro de obra do tenant atual usando somente public_uid.' It uses a specific verb (consulta), identifies the resource (registro de obra), scopes it to the current tenant, and highlights the key parameter (public_uid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like music360_list_obra (listing) and other get_* tools targeting different entities.

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 implies usage for fetching a single record by public_uid, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., when needing a list or having a numeric ID). The phrase 'usando somente public_uid' gives a hint, but there is no explicit comparison with alternatives like music360_list_obra.

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