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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool filters by date, client document, and company CNPJ, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), response format, or any rate limits. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is so sparse that it barely adds value beyond the name. It front-loads the resource name but does not structure the filter information in a way that helps the agent quickly understand usage. It is appropriately sized for a trivial tool, but here it is under-specified.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the filters interact, whether the tool returns a list or a single object, or how pagination works. An agent would need to guess parameter formats and the response structure. The description fails to cover essential details for correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly names three of the seven parameters (data_inicial, data_fim, doc_cliente, cnpj_emp) as filters, adding some meaning. However, it completely omits limit, offset, and account, leaving the agent unsure of their purpose. The information is partial and lacks details like date formats or requiredness.

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 identifies the tool's resource as 'Pedidos de venda' (sales orders) and specifies the underlying entity 'LinxPedidosVenda'. It also lists the primary filter fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like microvix_produtos or microvix_movimento. The verb is implied (list/retrieve), but the context makes the purpose clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling microvix_* tools. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The agent must infer that it is for sales orders based solely on the name, which is risky given the large tool family.

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