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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false, and destructiveHint: false. The description does not contradict these but also doesn't add much beyond them. It clarifies that bulk execution is supported via ids, which is useful, but does not mention other behavioral aspects like whether the operation is destructive or has side effects. Since annotations already set the hints, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 and front-loaded with the core action type, but it mixes Portuguese and English, which may cause confusion. It includes a redundant line '[Flattened action: get]' that duplicates what is already in the description. It is compact but could be clearer and better structured.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to use parameters like 'filter', 'with', or 'order' for a get operation. The bulk support is mentioned, but details on how to structure batch requests are vague. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

There are 10 parameters with a schema description coverage of 0%. The description mentions 'id' for getting a single item, 'ids' for bulk, 'data' for create/update body, and generic 'filtros' for list, but does not explain individual parameters like 'page', 'limit', 'order', 'query', 'filter', 'account', or 'with'. This leaves the agent under-informed about how to use most parameters, especially since the schema provides no descriptions.

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 that this tool handles kommo companies actions: list, get, create, update, and then highlights the flattened action 'get'. It specifies the resource (companies) and the operations supported, with a Portuguese note indicating pagination and filters for listing. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like kommo_companies_list or kommo_companies_get, although the flattened action makes it clear this is the get operation.

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 tells the user that this tool can be used for get operations with bulk support via ids, and mentions other actions but does not provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like kommo_companies_list for listing. It implies usage but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings.

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