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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, providing safety context. The description adds operational details (POST method, pagination, filter semantics) that go beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose and key parameters, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it identifies the resource type (office users), the filtering mechanism, and pagination, which covers the essential operational context needed by an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role: filtro as API-defined criteria, and pagina/quantidade_registros for pagination, offering clear operational meaning despite not detailing the filter object's internal structure.

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 action ('Busca Usuários do escritório por filtro'), specifies the HTTP endpoint (POST /usuario/consulta), and distinguishes from the sibling 'get' tools by emphasizing filter-based search with pagination.

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?

It mentions pagination parameters and filter criteria, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like projuris_get_usuario, leaving the when-to-use decision partially implied rather than stated.

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