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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is useful, but it omits the admin-only scoping implied by target_user_id and says nothing about defaults when no user is targeted.

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 compact sentences with the data scope front-loaded and the use case second; nothing is padded. Slightly terse given the overlapping sibling tools, 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, which is the main gap filled. It is still incomplete on the admin-only operating context and on what 'perfil de acoes' means in practice, which matters for the optional target_user_id.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's own description already explains the admin-only restriction, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, default, or behavior detail beyond what the schema states, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Le os dados basicos da conta do Radar') and enumerates the returned fields (business name, plan, creation date, action profile). It does not differentiate from nearby read tools such as get_business_summary, get_brand or get_agent_config, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Provides one concrete trigger ('Use para responder "qual o nome da minha conta"'), which implies when to reach for it. It gives no exclusions and does not name an alternative for the overlapping account-summary tools, so routing is only partially guided.

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