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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on result limits, pagination, or why the 'teste_gratis' tag matters—so it delivers no behavioral value beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no repetition—the filter list is the essential content. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is part of the reason other dimensions are thin.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would be the natural place to say what a result looks like or how the default limit of 20 behaves under pagination, and it says neither. With full schema coverage on inputs and read-only annotations, a 3 is the minimum viable level for this complexity.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories (texto, categoria, tags, preço, estoque) mapping loosely onto query/category/tags/min_price/max_price/in_stock_only, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond it.

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 (busca) and resource (produtos) plus the dimensions it can filter on, which separates it from get_product (single fetch) and list_products (unfiltered listing). However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 phrase 'filtros combinados' implies this is the tool for refined lookups versus enumeration, and the required 'company' scope is visible in the schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to list_products/get_product as alternatives.

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