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 description adds little beyond that. It does not mention authentication, error handling, or that the response shape is arbitrary, which would add context beyond annotations. Given the annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and contains only essential information. No filler words or redundant details.

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 generic REST GET fallback, the description covers the core behavior, usage, and scope. It has no output schema, but the generic nature means the return is variable. It would be slightly improved by noting that the response is untransformed raw data, but the current description is sufficient for the tool's role.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that `path` is a resource path (with example) and `query` is optional. However, it does not detail how `query` keys map to URL query parameters, leaving some ambiguity. Still, it adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 it is a generic GET for any REST resource, distinguishing it from the many named sibling tools. It specifies the action (GET), the target (REST resource of Projuris ADV), and the exact use case (resources without a dedicated tool).

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 explicitly says 'Use para recursos sem tool nomeada' (use for resources without a named tool), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly say 'do not use when a named tool exists', but the instruction implies this fallback role. This is clear enough but could be more explicit about preferring specific tools.

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