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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which provides some transparency. The description does not contradict these annotations, but it also does not add much behavioral detail beyond what is already specified in 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 brief but poorly structured, mixing Portuguese and English, and includes an odd 'Flattened action: activities' phrase. It could be more concise and clearly organized.

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?

Without output schema or parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the meaning of 'entregas' (deliveries) or the expected return format, leaving the tool's full functionality ambiguous.

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 schema has four parameters (id, ids, cursor, account) with no descriptions. The description only partially explains their use (e.g., cursor for list, id for get/activities, ids for bulk), leaving parameters like account unexplained. Parameter coverage is low.

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 mentions webhooks and lists actions like list, get, and activities, but the exact purpose is unclear. It seems to involve retrieving webhook activities, but the phrasing is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools such as guru_webhooks_get and guru_webhooks_list.

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 lists possible actions (list, get, activities) and mentions bulk support, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no clear indication of specific use cases or prerequisites.

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