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 safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that the output is documentation, not live availability, and that it's extracted from public TOTVS documentation. This provides meaningful nuance beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe other behaviors like pagination or error handling, which is acceptable for a read-only catalog.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately delivers the critical differentiation from siblings. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

While the description clearly states the purpose and output fields, it omits any explanation of the parameters (which are fully undocumented in the schema) and does not describe the output shape beyond a list of fields. Without an output schema, the agent lacks details on how to properly filter or interpret results. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema coverage, the description should have provided parameter guidance, making it incomplete for effective usage.

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 for the four parameters (limit, termo, account, segmento). However, the description provides no explanation of any parameter or how they affect the results. It only discusses the tool's purpose and output fields. With zero schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of these parameters.

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 ('Consults') and identifies the resource ('catalog of 125 official REST APIs from the Protheus line') and return fields (id, title, module, and read routes). It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it serves to discover which route to pass to protheus_api and explicitly contrasts with protheus_diagnostico. This fully clarifies what the tool does and differentiates it from related 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to discover which route to pass in protheus_api') and when not to use it ('it's documentation, not availability; use protheus_diagnostico for what this installation responds'). It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity about usage context.

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