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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does usefully disclose the returned payload (including history and attempt counts), which compensates for the missing output schema. It says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, error behavior when item_id/diligence_id are invalid, or payload size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but every element conveys what the agent will receive. Slightly list-like rather than structured, but efficient.

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?

It adequately sketches the return payload given that no output schema exists, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema parameter documentation, the definition leaves the caller without required-parameter semantics or safety/auth context.

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 0% and neither of the two required parameters (item_id, diligence_id) is mentioned in the description. It is left entirely to the agent to guess the identifier format and the relationship between the two IDs.

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 states a specific resource (an item) and the retrieval intent ('Detalhe completo'), and enumerates the fields returned (summary, stop reason, protocol, next check, fee, attempts, history). This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_diligences, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_diligence.

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 on when to call this versus get_diligence, list_requests, or bulk_items — an agent must infer it from the name. No preconditions, no mention of what happens if the item belongs to a different diligence.

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