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 covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination or filtering behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single short phrase. While it contains no fluff, it is under-specified: it lacks any structural detail or context about the tool's functionality, making it more of a title than a description.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description only states 'List receipts' without covering parameters, return behavior, or use cases. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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% (none of the three parameters page, query, page_size are documented in the schema). The description offers no parameter explanations, so the agent has no idea what these parameters mean or how to use them. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Lista receitas' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (receipts). It distinguishes from siblings like easyjur_list_receitas_grupo (list receipts group) and easyjur_get_receita (get a single receipt) by focusing on the plural list operation.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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