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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it lists CNPJs of a group, which is the expected behavior, but does not mention pagination, error conditions, or the exact structure of results. Since annotations cover the important behavioral traits, the description adds minimal extra context, warranting a 3.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that effectively communicate the purpose and a usage tip. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details. Every part of the text serves a purpose, so it earns a perfect score.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention the return format (e.g., array of CNPJs, pagination handling) or clarify the optional parameters. While the purpose is clear, the lack of parameter explanations and response details makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without extra context, especially given the 0% schema coverage.

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 the description does not explain any of the four parameters (grupo, limit, offset, account). It only implies that 'grupo' is relevant by mentioning a group, but offers no details on syntax, defaults, or the meaning of limit/offset/account. With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a low score.

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 the tool's function: listing CNPJs of stores belonging to a group (LinxGrupoLojas). It uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a resource ('CNPJs das lojas'), making it easy to understand what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling microvix_lojas, but the group context provides enough distinction for an agent.

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 includes a usage hint: 'Use pra descobrir os cnpj_emp antes de iterar' (use to discover the cnpj_emp before iterating). This suggests when to use it in a workflow but does not mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like microvix_lojas. It gives partial guidance, so it earns a 3.

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