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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already disclose the safe, non-destructive nature. The description adds the behavior of searching by name/title/values and optional object restriction, but does not disclose details like pagination, result format, or account scoping beyond the parameter. Since annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences in Portuguese, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clear optional parameter. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 is a read-only search with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the essential search behavior and the key optional filter (object). However, it does not clarify the behavior of 'limit' or 'account', and with no output schema, it could have mentioned return format or pagination. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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, and it does explain that 'object' restricts the search scope and that 'q' is the main search term. However, it does not add meaning for 'limit' or 'account' beyond what their names imply. The description adds value for 'q' and 'object' but leaves other parameters unexplained, so a baseline 3 is justified.

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 states a specific verb ('Busca textual') and resource ('nos registros'), clarifying it performs a text search across CRM records. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crm_get_records and crm_list_records by emphasizing the textual search aspect and optional object restriction.

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 text-based searching and optional filtering by object type, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like crm_list_records or crm_get_records. It provides clear context for the search behavior but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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