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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, matching the description's 'leitura' (read). The description adds the 'Bulk support' feature but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or response format. It adds minimal value beyond 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, front-loading the read-only purpose and then listing actions and bulk support. It is efficient with no redundant sentences, though the formatting could be more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 tool complex with 9 parameters, no output schema, and multiple actions. The description does not explain how to select an action (no action parameter in schema), nor does it describe return values, pagination, or error handling. It is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke specific actions without additional context.

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 description maps several parameters to actions (e.g., search uses email, doc, name, created_at_ini/end, cursor; get uses id) and mentions 'ids' for bulk. This provides some meaning beyond the bare schema, which has 0% coverage. However, not all parameters are explained (e.g., account) and the mapping is not comprehensive, leaving ambiguity about which parameters apply to which action.

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 it's a read-only tool for contacts in Guru with a list of actions, which gives a general purpose. However, it lacks a clear single verb+resource focus and does not differentiate from sibling tools like guru_contacts_get or guru_contacts_search. The name suggests a focus on etickets, but the description lists multiple actions, causing ambiguity.

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 mentions 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution', which hints at a batch use case, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over the specific sibling tools for each action. No when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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