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 description correctly avoids repeating those. It adds useful behavioral context: the two modules are distinct and may return divergent results, and it enumerates the MRP-included balances (blocked, consigned, quality control). 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 (two sentences) but not optimally concise. It repeats 'saldo em estoque' and the second sentence is somewhat run-on. Still, it front-loads the key instruction about choosing the source.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no descriptions in the schema, the description is incomplete. It explains only the 'fonte' parameter and lacks guidance on filtering, pagination, or expected response shape. For a query tool, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly explains the 'fonte' parameter with its two enum values and their semantics, which is valuable. However, it neglects the other 9 parameters (page, order, fields, filter, params, account, page_size, sql_filter) leaving them effectively undocumented, especially the complex nested 'params' object.

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' = queries) and a specific resource (stock balance) and distinguishes two sources (varejo vs. mrp) with concrete meanings. It clearly separates this tool from siblings like protheus_produtos or protheus_vendas_varejo by focusing on inventory balance.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only instructs on choosing between two internal sources ('fonte'), which is parameter selection, not tool selection. It never mentions sibling tools or conditions for preferring them.

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