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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds a useful behavioral detail about bulk execution via ids, but does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or what the response looks like. This is adequate but not rich.

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 minimal and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by a single high-value behavioral note. There is no redundant text or filler.

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?

Despite eleven parameters and no output schema, the description only explains the id/ids selection mechanism and bulk support. It omits pagination, ordering, filtering, expansion, field selection, and response shape, so an agent lacks enough context to call the tool correctly in many scenarios.

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%, and the description clarifies only two of eleven parameters: 'id' and 'ids'. Several cryptic parameters such as 'expand', 'sql_filter', 'params', and 'page_size' receive no explanation, so the description does not compensate adequately for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('comissões de venda'), and clarifies that it can return a collection or a single commission by internal id. This clearly establishes the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly compare itself to siblings.

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 resource name and description imply the tool is for querying commission data, and the bulk support line gives some guidance on using ids for batched requests. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving usage partly to inference.

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