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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope information (which domains are merged into one response), but says nothing about behavior when the contact is not found, what happens if neither phone nor contact_id is supplied, or the cost/latency of the aggregate call — the main risk with a fan-out tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the content scope and then the decision rule. The enumeration in sentence one is dense but each item defines the tool's boundary, so nothing is wasted.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does by listing the six merged sections. Minor gap: it does not state what happens when both identifier params are omitted (none are required) or how large/expensive the aggregate response can be.

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% and all three params are documented, including the phone/contact_id alternative and the messages_limit default and max. The description does not restate or add anything about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work.

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+resource ('visão completa de um contato') and enumerates exactly what the aggregate view contains: cadastro, estágio no funil, mensagens, processo com etapas, ordens de serviço, cadências. This is clearly distinguishable from the numerous get_contact/list_* siblings because it is explicitly an aggregation of them.

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?

Gives an explicit selection trigger ('quando a pergunta for "o que está acontecendo com esse cliente?"') and names the four siblings it replaces (get_contact + get_conversations + list_processes + list_field_orders). An agent can decide between this and the single-purpose tools without opening any schema.

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