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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: substring/case/accent-insensitive text matching, the '(valor exato)' exception for codes and plates, the presence of 'total_disponivel' in the response, and anti-pattern guidance against repeating queries with different limits.

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-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly bulleted by view; the closing paragraph on filtering, total_disponivel and single-call discipline is dense but earned. Some per-view filter lists duplicate what the schema already states, which costs a little length.

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 13-parameter read-only query tool with an output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs: view selection, filter applicability, text-matching semantics, pagination, and result-size signaling. Nothing material is missing.

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% and each parameter already documents which views it applies to, so the description largely restates that. It still adds real meaning the schema lacks: the substring matching rule and the exact-value caveat for codigo_os, plus the default-farm behavior for 'fazenda'.

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 resource (custo dos insumos aplicados) and its two aggregation axes, then enumerates the three concrete views (total_talhao, por_classe, por_ordem). An agent can distinguish this from consultar_producao, consultar_financeiro and consultar_ordens_servico without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the default view when 'visao' is omitted, lists which filters apply to each view, and gives direct invocation guidance ('Chame uma vez só, já com o limite que a resposta vai usar — nunca repita a consulta mudando só o limite'). It also tells the agent when to supply 'fazenda' versus omitting it for the current farm.

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