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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope (multiple companies) and the output structure (receita, despesas, saldo por empresa), giving the agent a concrete expectation of what the tool returns beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and output fields without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Retorna' and clearly presents the resource and data scope.

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 tool with only one optional parameter and simple output expectation, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the returned metrics and their grouping, which would guide an agent even without an output schema. Minor omission: it does not mention that all companies are included by default or how the empresaId affects the result, but this is covered by the schema.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter 'empresaId' ('ID da empresa principal (grupo)'). The tool description does not add further semantics about the parameter, so it remains at the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Retorna visão consolidada de múltiplas empresas do grupo' (returns consolidated view of multiple companies) and lists the specific data points (revenue, expenses, balance per company). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling dashboards like dashboard_executivo, which likely targets a single company.

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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use the tool: whenever a consolidated view across the group's multiple companies is needed, with financial metrics broken down by company. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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