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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the purchase is "still anonymous" and supplies a return shape { documento_id, vinculado, recuperacao }, but it never explains what the access code does, whether the code is consumed, or what a successful/failed check looks like.

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 sentences with no padding, and the return shape is stated compactly at the end. Slightly awkward wording, but every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 return shape compensates for the missing output schema and annotations cover the safety profile, so the core call is described. What is missing is the routing context — when to use this versus documento_vincular or claim_guest_tracking — which matters given a crowded sibling set of document-related tools.

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 100%, so both `id` and `acesso_codigo` are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the access code — arguably the tool's central input — nor about how the anonymous-purchase state interacts with the required `id`.

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 names an action ("checks the link" / "allows exporting the code") tied to an anonymous purchase document, but the phrasing is vague and partly mistranslated — it is unclear whether the tool validates an access code, retrieves a document, or claims an anonymous purchase. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as documento_vincular, get_document, or claim_guest_tracking.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives, even though siblings like documento_vincular (link a document) and claim_guest_tracking (claim anonymous tracking) sit squarely in the same territory. The agent must infer the routing decision from the name alone.

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