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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds context about the scope ('por loja') and the returned fields, but does not go beyond that to disclose any additional behavior such as pagination limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with missing filters. Since annotations exist, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what structured data provides.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists key output fields, followed by a filter hint. There is no wasted wording. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and parameters), but it is efficient and to the point.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description is far from complete for an agent to call this tool correctly. It does not explain the format of date strings, the meaning of referencia/cod_produto, pagination behavior, default behavior with no filters, or the exact response structure. An agent would be guessing on many aspects of 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?

The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions three parameters (data_mov_ini, data_mov_fim, cnpj_emp) as filters, and implicitly references some output fields that are not parameters. It does not explain the purpose of limit, offset, account, referencia, or cod_produto. Coverage is far below what is needed, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 provides product details per store ('Detalhe de produto por loja') and lists the specific fields returned (código de barras, quantidade, preco_custo, preco_venda, custo_medio). It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like microvix_produtos or microvix_produtos_inventario, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 mentions filters (date and CNPJ) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of when a user should pick this over microvix_produtos, microvix_produtos_inventario, or microvix_movimento. It only implies usage through the filter statement, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly select among siblings.

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