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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint and the concept of fetching by code, which is consistent with the annotations. However, it does not disclose what is returned (e.g., fields, structure) or any additional behavior like error handling. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable and no contradiction.

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 that conveys the resource, verb, parameter, and endpoint. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple read-only fetch-by-code tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource and how to identify it. However, it does not explain the 'query' parameter, and the term 'Financeiro' may be ambiguous without more detail. The presence of a sibling consulta tool and the extra query param would benefit from additional guidance, but the tool is still functional at a basic level.

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 compensate. It does clarify that 'codigo' is the key identifier via 'por código' and the endpoint path. But the 'query' parameter is completely unexplained and remains an opaque object. The description provides partial semantics but leaves one of two parameters undocumented.

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's purpose: 'Busca um(a) Financeiro: receitas e despesas por código' with the endpoint 'GET /receita-despesa/{codigo}'. It identifies a specific verb (Busca), resource (Financeiro: receitas e despesas), and parameter (código). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling projuris_consulta_receita_despesa, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over consulta_receita_despesa or other list/search tools. There is no mention of 'use when you have a code' or exclusions.

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