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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the baseline is high. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those annotations: pagination semantics, query filtering with JSON, the need for parent_id on nested resources, and bulk execution via ids/parent_ids. It does not mention return format or authentication, but these are less critical for a read-only, non-destructive tool.

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 compact and starts with the core purpose, then flows into usage patterns, resource enumeration, and bulk support. The resource list somewhat duplicates the schema enum, but it reinforces availability without adding excessive bulk. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded, though a bit dense due to the long list of resources.

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 read-only multi-resource tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most necessary context: how to fetch single records, list with pagination, filter, handle nested resources, and batch via bulk parameters. Gaps like return shape and the meaning of `account` are minor given the tool's query-oriented nature and the existence of sibling write tools that handle mutations.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It meaningfully explains `resource`, `id`, `offset`, `limit`, `query`, `parent_id`, and bulk `ids`/`parent_ids`, which is substantial compensation. However, the `account` parameter is left unexplained and the exact structure of `query` JSON is vague, preventing a perfect score.

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 identifies this as a read-only tool for Bsoft TMS service orders ('Ordem de Serviço no Bsoft TMS (leitura)') and enumerates the exact resources available, such as ordensServico, agendamentos, materiais, status, and tipos. The '(leitura)' marker and explicit resource list distinguish it from the sibling write tools like bsoft_os_write_create and bsoft_os_write_update.

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 provides concrete usage patterns: pass `resource` plus optional `id` for a single record, or omit `id` to list with offset/limit pagination and JSON query filters. It also explains that nested resources require `parent_id` and mentions bulk support for ids/parent_ids, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly contrast with write siblings, but the read-only label and sibling naming make the distinction obvious.

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