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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe. However, the description adds nothing beyond the endpoint, such as pagination behavior, result scope, or authentication specifics. With annotations covering safety, the description still should provide some behavioral context, but it does not.

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 one sentence and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and endpoint. There is zero fluff, and every word serves a functional purpose. It is concise to a fault but earns full marks for structure and brevity.

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?

With 3 unannotated parametersappers, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide necessary context. It does not explain pagination, filtering syntax, required authentication, or return behavior. The endpoint path is a hint, but not enough for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 3 parameters (account, filters, alterado_apos) that are completely undocumented in the description. The description provides no meaning beyond the parameter names, which are ambiguous (e.g., 'filters' as a plain string). This is a severe gap.

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 states the tool lists price tables and gives the endpoint, which is a clear verb+resource pattern. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling list tools like mercos_list_clientes or mercos_list_produtos, and the phrase 'tabelas de preco' is not elaborated to clarify its business meaning.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other listing tools, nor any context about typical use cases. The description simply names the operation and endpoint, so an agent gets no help in deciding between this and similar list tools.

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