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

Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds modest value by specifying the GET method and bulk execution via ids. It does not discuss pagination, return format, or possible limitations, so the additional transparency is limited.

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 highly concise: a single purpose line with the endpoint, plus one clear sentence about bulk support. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Despite having helpful annotations, the tool has four parameters, all undocumented in the schema, and no output schema. The description only partially explains id and ids, leaving query/account and return-behavior mysteries, which makes it insufficient for fully informed invocation.

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 the description only hints at the 'id' (via endpoint) and 'ids' (via bulk support) parameters. The 'query' and 'account' parameters are not explained, leaving 50% of the schema without semantic meaning.

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 'Buscar os negocios do lead' (search for the lead's businesses) and includes the exact GET endpoint, clearly specifying the resource and scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like datacrazy_businesses_list by targeting businesses belonging to a specific lead.

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 phrase 'do lead' clearly indicates this tool is used when needing businesses associated with a lead. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools for non-lead-scoped business listing.

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