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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the GET method, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication, or return format. It does not contradict the 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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, the parameter, and the endpoint. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 get-by-code tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies purpose, parameter, endpoint, and relies on annotations for safety. The gap is the unexplained 'query' parameter and the absence of return/error details, but the basic call can be made confidently.

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 schema has no field descriptions (0% coverage). The description clarifies that 'codigo' is the lookup value via 'por código' and the endpoint path, but the optional 'query' parameter is not explained anywhere, leaving its meaning and format unclear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Busca') and a specific resource ('Usuários do escritório') with a precise lookup criterion ('por código'). It also documents the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /usuario/{codigo}), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from consultation/search 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 phrase 'por código' implies that the tool should be used when the caller already knows the user's codigo. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with projuris_consulta_usuario or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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