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 execution capability, which is useful. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but with annotations covering the safety aspects, a 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 very concise: two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds the bulk support note. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative about parameters.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the 'query' parameter, return structure, or any edge cases. For a simple get-by-ID tool, it's adequate for the main use case but incomplete for full understanding.

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 mentions 'grupo_id' and 'grupo_ids' but does not explain the 'query' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving the 'query' parameter's purpose unclear. This is a significant gap.

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 purpose: 'Busca um grupo por ID' (searches for a group by ID). It also mentions bulk support via 'grupo_ids', which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like easyjur_list_grupos, though the 'by ID' scope implies a difference.

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: use this tool when you have a specific group ID to fetch, and mentions bulk support. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like easyjur_list_grupos for listing all groups. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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