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 clear. The description adds the bulk support behavior and the endpoint pattern, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with invalid ids, response format, or any rate limits. Given the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, 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 short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then adds the bulk support note. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the bulk note, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no enums, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the 'query' and 'account' parameters, doesn't describe the return value, and doesn't provide context on how this tool fits with the list tool. The bulk support is mentioned but not detailed (e.g., how to format ids, limits). For a tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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. The description mentions 'id' in the endpoint and 'ids' for bulk, but doesn't explain the 'query' and 'account' parameters at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'id' is the primary identifier and 'ids' enables batch, but 'query' and 'account' remain unexplained. This is a significant gap.

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 states 'Campos extras de orçamentos: Visualizar (GET /api/atributos_orcamentos/{id})' which clearly indicates this tool retrieves extra fields for budgets (orcamentos). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type (orcamentos) and the action (Visualizar/GET). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the list variant, but the verb 'Visualizar' and the endpoint pattern make the purpose clear.

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 mentions 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution' which gives a hint about when to use this tool (for batch retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over the list tool or other alternatives. The context is implied: use this to get specific extra fields by id, but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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