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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the filter semantics and pagination behavior (pagina/quantidade_registros), which are operational details not implied by the annotations alone. It does not contradict annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential usage details without any redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 description covers the core aspects of a search tool: purpose, filter usage, and pagination. Since there is no output schema, it might have mentioned the response format, but the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It is complete considering the tool's simplicity and the annotations.

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 must carry the burden. It clarifies that 'filtro' is the criteria per API and that 'pagina/quantidade_registros' are for pagination. This adds meaningful interpretation to all three parameters, though it doesn't specify the structure of the filter object, relying on API reference.

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 searches for contracts (honorários) using a filter, and specifies the HTTP endpoint (POST /contrato/consulta). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific resource (contratos) and mentioning the filter and pagination parameters, which is unique among the many consulta tools.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool (for contract searches) and how to use it (via filter and pagination), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context for the search operation, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling consulta tools.

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