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

Annotations already fully cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Description adds the endpoint and bulk execution behavior, which is useful context. Description does not contradict 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?

Two compact lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 GET tool with strong annotations this is mostly adequate, but query and account parameters are undocumented and no output format is described. The bulk support mention adds value but does not cover all 4 parameters.

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 explains ids (bulk) and implicitly id (URL path). The query and account parameters receive zero explanation, leaving their purpose and usage unclear.

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?

Clear verb 'Visualizar' + resource 'Campos extras de produtos' with exact endpoint GET /api/atributos_produtos/{id}. Distinguishes from siblings like gestaoclick_produtos_get by specifying it handles extra product fields, not core product data.

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?

Indicates it's for viewing extra product fields and mentions bulk support via ids, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs gestaoclick_produtos_get or sibling *_get tools, nor provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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