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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Escopo: guests:read · Risco: read · Efeitos: Nenhum' line largely restates structured data rather than adding to it. The description does add that results are ids intended for booking creation, but says nothing about pagination or result ordering/caps.

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 lines, front-loaded with the searchable fields and the practical outcome (ids for reservations). The scope/risk/effect line is boilerplate that duplicates the annotations and could be dropped.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, an agent still lacks the semantics of limit, the behavior of an empty query (which is the default), and what the id values look like. Adequate to attempt a call, but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions name, document, e-mail and mobile, which partially maps to query and document, and 'pessoas, empresas ou agências' implicitly explains the type enum. The limit parameter and the query-vs-document distinction (and empty-query default behavior) are left unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb (Busca) and resource (pessoas, empresas ou agências) plus the searchable fields, which distinguishes it from get_guest (single lookup) and create_guest. The listed fields ('e-mail', 'celular') do not map cleanly onto the schema's query/document parameters, which blurs the picture slightly.

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 line 'Devolve ids para criar reservas' implies the tool is used before create_reservation, which is useful context. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. use get_guest when the id is already known) or how it relates to the other guest siblings.

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