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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which confirms the read-only nature but provides no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, response format, or side effects). This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 a single short sentence that conveys the core action and endpoint with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 list operation, the description is incomplete: it lacks explanations of the parameters, expected output, and potential use cases. With no output schema and minimal param info, the agent cannot fully understand what the tool does or what it returns. The endpoint hint is helpful, but not 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?

Both parameters (query and account) have no descriptions in the schema or tool description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails entirely. The parameter names are ambiguous without context, leaving the agent with no understanding of how to use them.

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 (Listar) and specifies the resource (situações de compras) with the exact endpoint (GET /api/situacoes_compras). It distinguishes from siblings by the resource name, but does not elaborate on what purchase situations represent or how they differ from other status lists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states 'Listar' without indicating prerequisites, filtering scenarios, or when not to use it. Sibling tools follow the same pattern, but no explicit comparison or exclusion is given.

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