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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing bulk execution via despesa_ids, which is not evident from the annotations or schema alone. It still omits return-format or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the bulk-support detail is a single additive clause. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool, annotations cover safety, making the description reasonably adequate. However, the query parameter is undocumented, and there is no mention of return values or error handling, leaving the agent with some uncertainty when invoking the tool with anything other than a plain ID.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies despesa_id as the search identifier and despesa_ids as the batch input, but it completely ignores the query parameter, which remains unexplained. This makes the parameter guidance partial rather than complete.

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: 'Busca uma despesa por ID' (searches for an expense by ID), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like easyjur_list_despesas and from other get-by-ID tools targeting different resources. The added bulk support detail further clarifies its purpose.

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 when a despesa_id or despesa_ids are available, and the bulk support note adds a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as easyjur_list_despesas for unfiltered searches, nor does it mention exclusion criteria.

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