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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output structure (detailed NFs + resumo with quantity and total value) and clarifying the invoice type ('notas fiscais de saída do tipo Venda'), which goes beyond 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 two short, focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the return summary without unnecessary verbosity, earning high marks for conciseness.

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 query tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear overview of the return format (NFs fields + resumo) and the main filtering criteria. It misses details on pagination and parameter formats, but these could be inferred from schema property names. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use correctly in common cases.

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 clarifies that the tool filters by store ('de uma loja') and period ('por período'), which maps to 'loja' and the date parameters. However, it does not explain the format of dates, pagination parameters ('page', 'limit'), or 'account', leaving gaps for half the parameters.

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's function: it returns sales invoices ('NFs de venda') for a store over a period, including fields (data, destinatário, valor) and a summary. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cigam_vendas_por_dia and cigam_vendas_resumo by specifying that it returns both the detailed invoices and the resumo for the period.

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 implies usage for querying sales by store and period, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. With many sibling tools (e.g., cigam_vendas_resumo, cigam_vendas_por_dia), explicit guidance or exclusions would improve the score.

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