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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'leitura' is consistent with those. The added 'Bulk support: accepts ids' provides some extra behavioral context beyond the annotations, but the list of unrelated actions makes the actual behavior less transparent than it could be.

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 compact and front-loaded with the resource and read intent. The action list and bulk note are terse, though the action list arguably adds noise for a tool annotated as a flattened get.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, this description is insufficient to confidently invoke the tool. It does not specify which of the search-oriented parameters are valid for the flattened get action, what the return shape is, or what 'account' means.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, but it only groups parameter names under actions (email/doc/name/created_at_ini/end/cursor for search; id for get; ids for bulk). It omits the 'account' parameter entirely and never explains formats, requiredness, or which parameters actually apply to the flattened get 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 opens with 'Contatos/clientes no Guru (leitura)', establishing a read operation on contacts. However, it then lists search, transactions, subscriptions, affiliations, and etickets as 'Ações' before saying '[Flattened action: get]', which muddles whether this tool is for get-by-id or a broader read facade. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like guru_contacts_search.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'get (id)' and 'Bulk support: accepts ids' suggest this is for single or batched contact retrieval by id. There is no explicit when-to-use versus guru_contacts_search, guru_contacts_transactions, guru_contacts_subscriptions, or guru_contacts_affiliations, and the presence of 'search' in the action list blurs the boundary.

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