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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details such as following relationship fields, returning all or a specific field's target records, and supporting batched ids, but does not disclose pagination, authorization, or error behavior.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the bulk-support behavior efficiently.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no schema-level parameter descriptions. The description covers core behavior and the general return concept, but omits details such as id/ids mutual exclusivity, account usage, and an outline of the return structure.

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 `field` as a filter for one relationship field and `ids` as batch support, but leaves `object`, `id`, and especially `account` implicit without explaining their roles or how they interact.

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 opens with 'Resolve os registros relacionados de um registro', which clearly states a specific verb and resource: resolving related records. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like crm_get_records and crm_list_records by explaining that it follows relationship fields and returns target records.

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 when to use the tool (when relationship traversal is needed) and mentions bulk support, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like crm_get_records or crm_search. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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