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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies the removal does not spawn a watch or notification and that the record's snapshot is sourced from the acervo, which are genuine side-effect disclosures.

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 the action and free of filler. The phrasing is slightly terse/cryptic in the second clause, but nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. It does not state reversibility, whether a confirmation is required, or what the call returns, leaving modest gaps for a destructive operation.

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 the 'id' parameter is already documented as the catalog identifier. The description's 'O cliente fornece somente o ID; o retrato vem do acervo' adds only marginal meaning about data sourcing and that no other field is needed — the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Remove a compra da lista pessoal do dono' — an agent knows this deletes a saved purchase from a personal list. It implies a boundary with the watch/notification siblings ('Salvar não cria vigia nem notificação') but never names vigiar_compra or salvas as the contrasting tools, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for undoing a save. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-alternatives guidance against siblings like salvar_compra, vigiar_compra, or salvas. The line 'O cliente fornece somente o ID' is an input note, not usage routing.

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