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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false Mend Claims estado: read-only. The description labels itself as (leitura) and clarifies read-only. No extra behavioral detail (rate limits, auth, response shape) given.

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?

Fairly concise but dense; a non-native-English description with inline code-style action list. The action-to-parameter mapping is clear but would benefit from a structured breakdown.

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?

No output schema and no description of response shape, pagination details, or error behavior. Some context about actions and flattened actions, but an agent doesn't know what it will get back or what the product_id/offer_id values refer to beyond their names.

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?

Lists actions and their input parameters (name, type, cursor, product_id, etc.), plus the enum values for section. However 0% parameter description coverage means each param lacks an individual description; the context that groups params per action is not formalized in the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource: reads products/offers with a list of actions (list, get, offers, etc.). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like guru_products_list and guru_products_offers, which seem to overlap.

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?

Lists which action to use with which params but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as guru_products_list, guru_products_offers, guru_products_checkout_options, etc. No when-not guidance.

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