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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the user is public and bulk execution is supported via ids. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or response format, but the annotations lower the burden.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the core purpose and endpoint, the second adds bulk behavior. No redundant words or filler.

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 simple GET-by-id tool, the description covers the main purpose and bulk mode, but it leaves the 'account' parameter undocumented and offers no usage alternatives. Given no output schema, a bit more detail about the response or parameter relationships would make it fully complete.

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 must compensate. It explains 'id' (the user id) and 'ids' (bulk support), but the 'account' parameter is completely unexplained, and the relationship between id and ids is not clarified.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Detalha um usuário público por id' and includes the exact endpoint GET /users/{id}. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mercadolivre_get_category or mercadolivre_get_order.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mercadolivre_me or mercadolivre_list_accounts. The phrase 'usuário público' implies scope, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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