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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about batched execution through pessoa_ids, but does not disclose response shape, error behavior, authorization requirements, or the behavior of the query parameter.

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, the first immediately states the core purpose and the second adds the bulk behavior. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The core read-by-ID behavior is well covered and the annotations support the safety profile. However, with an undocumented nested query parameter and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps that may require the agent to guess about query usage and response expectations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that pessoa_id is the lookup key and that pessoa_ids enables batched execution, but it leaves the nested query parameter completely unexplained and adds no detail about value formats or constraints.

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 fetches a person by ID, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like easyjur_list_pessoas and easyjur_create_pessoa, and the bulk-support note adds further operational clarity.

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 ID-based lookup usage is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like list_pessoas or when not to use it. No alternatives are named and no exclusion criteria are given.

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