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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing bulk support for user_ids, though it does not describe return format or edge-case behavior.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose comes first, followed by a compact, useful bulk-support note.

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 lookup with strong annotations, the description covers purpose and bulk behavior. However, the undocumented 'query' object and lack of any return-value or error information leave noticeable gaps, especially since there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

The description explains user_id ('por ID') and user_ids ('bulk support'), but the schema has 0% description coverage and the 'query' parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. This leaves a meaningful gap for one of the three parameters.

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' (searches/fetches), a clear resource ('usuário'), and the key lookup criterion ('por ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like easyjur_list_users and other get_* tools.

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 clearly conveys that this is for retrieving a user by ID and additionally notes bulk support via user_ids. It does not explicitly mention list_users as the alternative for listing users or state when not to use this tool, but the intended context is clear.

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