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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about bulk execution via receita_ids, but does not explain response shape, error behavior, or any constraints on batched calls.

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: one clear main sentence plus a short bulk-support note. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 ID-based getter with read-only annotations, the description covers the primary and bulk use cases adequately. However, the unexplained `query` parameter and the absence of any return-value or error information leave notable gaps, especially without an output schema.

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 clarifies the purpose of receita_id ('por ID') and receita_ids ('bulk support'), but completely ignores the `query` parameter, which remains ambiguous despite being a nested object in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Busca' = fetches) with a clear resource ('uma receita') and identifier ('por ID'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from sibling listing tools like easyjur_list_receitas by focusing on ID-based retrieval.

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 'por ID' implies the tool should be used when the agent already has a specific receita ID, and the bulk-support note suggests using receita_ids for batched operations. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_receitas or how to choose between single and bulk modes beyond the parameter names.

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