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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the call is free ('grátis') and it explicitly declines to open content or start OCR, which sets expectations about side effects and downstream cost.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then routing guidance, then the negative scope. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (título, tipo, páginas, compra vinculada), and it discloses cost and non-side-effects. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from the numerous sibling document tools an agent must choose between.

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?

There is a single required parameter ('id', ID do documento) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id's format, scope or valid domain, which is acceptable here but not additive.

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 ('Consulta') plus the resource ('documento') and enumerates what it returns: título, tipo, páginas and the linked compra. It does not clearly distinguish itself from the many overlapping siblings (documento_leitura, documento_acesso, documento_dossie, meus_documentos), though the explicit 'não abre conteúdo nem inicia OCR' hints at a lighter-weight sibling than documento_leitura.

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?

Names one alternative and the condition for it ('Use compra para listar os documentos relacionados'), which is real routing guidance. However, it gives no guidance for the far more confusable siblings such as documento_leitura, documento_acesso or documento_arquivos, so the when-to-use story is only partially covered.

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