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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add nuance. It adds the distinction between single and bulk ID execution, which is useful beyond the schema, and nothing contradicts 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a compact action list; the bulk-support note adds useful information. The cryptic '[Flattened action: get]' line adds noise but does not seriously undermine scannability.

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 tool with no output schema, it fails to describe the response format or content beyond 'detalhe' and 'lista'. It also omits account semantics and the relationship to the sibling list tool, leaving an agent to infer several call conventions.

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 maps product_id and order_bump_id to actions and explains the plural bulk variants, but it leaves 'account' unexplained and does not clarify precedence or combination rules when singular and plural parameters are supplied together.

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 that this tool reads order bumps and distinguishes list versus get behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling cakto_order_bumps_list, and the name 'get' conflicts slightly with also describing list behavior.

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?

It provides concrete within-tool guidance: list requires product_id, get requires order_bump_id, and bulk IDs are accepted for batch execution. It does not say when to prefer this tool over cakto_order_bumps_list or the create/update siblings, and the '[Flattened action: get]' note is ambiguous.

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