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 known. The description adds the bulk execution behavior via the 'ids' parameter, which is useful but doesn't disclose error handling, authentication needs, or response format. Since annotations cover the core traits, a score of 3 is fair.

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, with just two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and adds the bulk support note without waste. However, it might be too brief, as it omits essential parameter details, but for what it covers, it is well-structured and to the point.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions. The description only partially explains the 'ids' parameter and leaves 'query' and 'account' undefined. It also doesn't describe what the return value looks like or any error conditions. Given the moderate complexity and lack of schema coverage, this 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. It only clarifies the 'ids' parameter for batch support; 'id' is implicit from the endpoint, but 'query' and 'account' remain unexplained. This leaves significant gaps in understanding all parameters, so a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Visualizar' - View) and the resource ('Campos extras ordens serviço'), matching the GET endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific resource type (ordens_servicos) and the operation (get vs list/create/update/delete). Though the sibling tools are numerous, this description unambiguously identifies its purpose.

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 provides a hint about bulk support ('accepts ids for batched execution') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the list alternative or other tools. No exclusions are given, but the behavior is clear enough for a GET operation. More explicit guidance, such as 'use this to fetch specific extra fields by id, not for listing all', would improve it.

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