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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the HTTP method and the resource path, which are useful context. However, it does not mention potential pagination, filtering, or any rate limits, but given the strong annotation coverage, 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 concise and front-loads the key information ('Campos extras vendas') and the endpoint. It is only one short sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. However, the lack of detail is a trade-off, but for what it contains, it earns a 4.

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's relative simplicity (list operation with two optional params and no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It omits details like typical usage patterns, parameter purposes, or any return structure nuances. With no output schema and low schema coverage, more context would be helpful, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

The input schema covers 0% of the two parameters (query and account) with descriptions, and the tool description provides no explanations for these parameters. This leaves the agent guessing what values to pass. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 the tool lists extra sales fields via GET /api/atributos_vendas, which is clear as a list operation. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling list tools like gestaoclick_atributos_vendas_get or other atributos_vendas tools. The phrase 'Campos extras vendas' is specific but not unique among siblings.

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, such as when to use the list vs get, or how it differs from other attribute list tools. The description mentions the HTTP method but does not explain scenarios or prerequisites, leaving usage ambiguous.

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