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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the required edm_… token and implies a pull/read-style operation, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, how the token should be supplied, or any pagination/error 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first delivers the core purpose and output characteristics, and the second adds the necessary auth condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context: resource type, alert id applicability, response content hints, and token requirement. It would benefit from clarifying the response shape or the meaning of 'canal pull', but these are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 input schema already documents both parameters completely: id is 'id do alerta' and limite is '1 a 100 (padrão 50)'. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the schema-coverage baseline of 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 identifies a concrete resource—purchases already matched to an alert—and gives scope qualifiers: pull channel, deadlines, and delivery status. It does not state an explicit verb like 'list' or 'obtain', and it does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear contextual guidance: this is for purchases already matched with an alert via the pull channel, and it signals an auth prerequisite. However, it never explicitly mentions when to choose this tool over related siblings such as vigiar_compra, alerta_por_cnpj, or compra, nor does it state exclusions.

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