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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds very little: it mentions 'Visualizar' which aligns with read-only, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects (none expected) or whether authentication/account selection is required. It also doesn't explain the 'query' or 'account' parameters' effect on behavior. With no additional behavioral context, the description does not go beyond the 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?

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No fluff, but could be more informative within the same length. It earns a high score for brevity, but the content is minimal, so it's not perfect.

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 GET tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% description coverage in schema, the description is severely undercomplete. It only explains the 'ids' parameter partially. It does not explain what the query parameter does, how the account is used, what the response looks like, or any constraints. The tool complexity is moderate (single resource retrieval with optional batch), but the description is far from sufficient.

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 any of the parameters. The schema lists 'id', 'ids', 'query', 'account' without descriptions. The description mentions 'ids' for bulk support but does not explain 'query' or 'account'. Without parameter explanations, the agent cannot know what 'query' or 'account' mean. The description fails to compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 it's for viewing recebimentos via GET endpoint with specific path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gestaoclick_recebimentos_list (list) and _create/_update/_delete by indicating it retrieves a single resource by ID, and also mentions bulk support via ids. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to the list tool, but the verb 'Visualizar' and path '/{id}' are clear.

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 says it accepts ids for batched execution, implying when multiple IDs are needed. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over the list tool (which might be for retrieving multiple records with filters). There's no mention of when not to use it, or alternatives. This minimal guidance is insufficient for distinguishing from the many list/get siblings.

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