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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact GET path and the batching behavior when `ids` is supplied. That is materially helpful for understanding execution semantics.

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 two tightly scoped sentences with no filler. The endpoint and supported bulk mode are placed prominently, and every sentence conveys a distinct piece of operational information.

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 description is decent for a straightforward read-only GET, especially with annotations confirming safety semantics. However, there is no output schema and two of the four parameters are undocumented, so the tool is not fully self-contained. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for edge cases like filtering/searching or account targeting.

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 partially clarifies `id` through the path template and `ids` through the bulk note, but leaves `query` and `account` completely unexplained. Since an agent likely needs to know what `query` and `account` do to invoke the tool correctly, this is a meaningful 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 clearly states the operation as 'Visualizar' (View) and provides the exact endpoint GET /api/orcamentos/{id}, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The bulk note also helps differentiate it from list/create/update/delete siblings by emphasizing that this tool retrieves existing orçamentos by id(s), not broader listing or mutation.

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 gives functional context: use this when you need to view a specific orçamento or set of orçamentos via ids. It also explicitly mentions bulk support. It does not name alternative list/create/update/delete tools, but the GET endpoint and read-only semantics make the intended use clear against the sibling set.

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