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

The annotations already disclose that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method and endpoint, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 short and contains no filler or repetition. However, it is at a level of under-specification where some needed contextual and parameter information is absent, so it is not fully 'appropriately sized.'

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 list endpoint, the minimal language and good safety annotations cover basic purpose, but the missing parameter semantics, lack of pagination/filtering context, and no mention of what data is returned make the definition incomplete for an agent relying solely on it.

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 meaning or interaction of 'query' and 'account'. An agent cannot infer whether these are filters, identifiers, or account-scoping values from the provided text.

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 operation and resource: 'Listar' and 'GET /api/compras'. This is enough to distinguish it from compras_get, compras_create, compras_update, and compras_delete, but it does not add scope beyond the obvious listing behavior.

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 this tool should be used versus alternatives like compras_get, or what kinds of list/summary operations warrant this call. Usage is only implied by the endpoint and tool name.

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