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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context about pagination (offset/limit), filtering (query JSON), and bulk support (ids, parent_ids). However, it doesn't describe return format or error behavior, which is acceptable given annotations cover the safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the purpose. It uses bullet-like structure for resource types and parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the bulk support sentence could be more specific. It's appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the main usage patterns: single record, list, nested, and bulk. It doesn't explain the 'account' parameter or return structure, but the core functionality is well-covered. The annotations provide safety context, so the description is reasonably 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the key parameters: resource (with enum values listed), id (single record), offset/limit (pagination), query (filters), parent_id (nested resources), and ids/parent_ids (bulk). However, it doesn't explain 'account' parameter, and the description is somewhat terse. It adds meaning beyond the schema for most parameters, but not all.

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 states the tool reads Bsoft TMS resources (users) and lists the specific resource types (recursos, grupos, inatividades, IPs de acesso). It distinguishes from write siblings by explicitly noting '(leitura)' and the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling read tools like bsoft_pessoas, but the resource scope is clear.

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 explains when to use it: pass resource + optional id for a single record, or no id to list with pagination and filters. It also mentions nested resources require parent_id. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the usage pattern is clear and distinct from write tools.

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