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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the bulk support trait (accepts ids for batched execution), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain behavior like error handling, return format, or pagination if multiple IDs are used. Given annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the endpoint and a clear bulk note. Every word adds value: it identifies the resource, the HTTP method, and the bulk capability. No fluff.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the core function and bulk support. However, it lacks an output schema (so no return details are provided), and with 4 parameters but only 2 documented implicitly, an agent might not know how to use 'query' and 'account'. The bulk feature is mentioned but not detailed (e.g., limits, response shape). Overall, it's adequate but incomplete for full usage.

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%, and there are 4 parameters, one required. The description only mentions 'id' (singular) and 'ids' (batched) but doesn't explain 'query' or 'account' parameters at all. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap: it leaves two parameters undocumented, which could confuse an agent about their purpose.

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 'Buscar atendente por ID (CRM)' with the HTTP endpoint, which is a specific verb (buscar/get) and resource (attendant). It distinguishes from 'datacrazy_attendants_crm_list' and 'datacrazy_attendants_multi_get' by focusing on single ID retrieval, and mentions bulk support via ids. Sibling differentiation is partially clear because 'multi_get' likely offers a similar bulk capability, but the description doesn't explicitly contrast with it.

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: fetch an attendant by ID, with bulk support for multiple IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'datacrazy_attendants_multi_get' or 'datacrazy_attendants_crm_list'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given. The bulk support note hints at when multiple IDs are needed, but the distinction with the multi_get sibling is not clarified.

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