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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it supports batched execution (ids parameter), but does not disclose any other behaviors like permission requirements or response format. Since annotations cover most behavioral 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 sentences that front-load the main action and mention bulk support. No wasted words.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and a sibling list tool, the description should provide more context, such as return format, parameter interplay, or typical use cases. It falls short, leaving the agent potentially unable to infer correct usage.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'account' parameter at all. While 'id' and 'ids' are implied by the text, their meanings and relationship (e.g., whether ids overrides id) are unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond 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 clearly states that the tool details a chart of accounts by ID ('Detalha um plano de contas por id'), which matches the tool name. It distinguishes from the sibling list tool (f360_listar_planos_contas) by indicating this is a get/detail operation. However, it could be more explicit about what a 'plano de contas' is.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like f360_listar_planos_contas. It only mentions bulk support, but does not specify when batched execution is appropriate or needed.

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