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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns by using 'Consulta.' The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as bulk execution via `branch_ids` and the specific-record behavior with `branch_id` and `codigo`. No contradiction with 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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds operational value: filters, single-record lookup, and bulk execution. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

Given 13 parameters, a 0%-coverage schema, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It explains basic lookup and bulk behavior, but omits how to select between `pedido` and `solicitacao`, advanced filtering, pagination, and return-value expectations, all of which matter for a complex API surface.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only covers some parameters: the `params` filter keys (branchId, product, deliveryDate, warehouse), plus `branch_id`, `codigo`, and `branch_ids`. Important parameters such as `tipo`, `filter`, `sql_filter`, `fields`, `expand`, `account`, `page`, and `page_size` are left unexplained, so an agent may not know how to use them correctly.

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 ('Consulta') and clearly identifies the resource: purchase orders or MRP purchase requisitions. This is distinct from the many related protheus_* siblings, and an agent can understand both the domain and the object being queried.

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 gives concrete usage context: it explains which filters go into `params`, that `branch_id` plus `codigo` returns a specific record, and that `branch_ids` enables batched execution. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the resource scope is specific enough to guide selection.

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