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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a hard cap of 50 sale ids and a one-result-per-sale return shape. It does not mention pagination behavior, which matters given the pagina/tamanho_pagina parameters.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the required calling constraint. No waste, though it is perhaps too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does partially cover the return shape ('um resultado por venda'). For a four-parameter list tool with 0% schema coverage, however, the pagination and account parameters are unaddressed, leaving real gaps.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains ids_venda (type and 50-id cap) but leaves pagina, tamanho_pagina, and account completely undocumented, so pagination and account scoping remain opaque.

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 resource and content: items (products/services, quantity, value) of one or more sales. An agent can distinguish it from contaazul_get_sale and contaazul_list_sales, though the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 a calling constraint ('Passe ids_venda (até 50)') but no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as contaazul_get_sale when a single sale's items are needed.

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