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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the returned fields but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or required authentication beyond what annotations imply. It provides some context but not beyond the annotations.

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 sentence in Portuguese that is direct and to the point. It is concise with no unnecessary information. However, for non-Portuguese agents, the language might reduce clarity, but conciseness is maintained.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description partially explains the return value with example fields. However, it does not specify the complete output structure, potential errors, or how the 'account' parameter affects results. It is adequate for a simple getter but lacks full completeness.

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 schema has one parameter 'account' with no description, and the description does not explain its purpose or expected format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify what 'account' refers to (e.g., ID, email, or slug).

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 specifies the tool returns company data (CNPJ, corporate name, tax regime). It clearly identifies the resource and provides specific fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_person' or 'get_sale'. However, it does not explicitly state that it retrieves data for the currently authenticated company, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description lacks context about authentication or the need for an active Conta Azul company. Sibling tools exist, but no differentiation or usage conditions are given.

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