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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation's safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by identifying the API and explaining that the returned codes are consumed by other tools, clarifying response semantics. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource in the first sentence. The second sentence adds practical value by explaining why the tool matters, so every part earns its place.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, its role as a starting point, and the broad nature of the return data (company/branch codes), while annotations cover safety. However, with 9 undocumented parameters and no output schema, an agent gets no guidance on pagination, filtering, field selection, or response shape beyond the general statement, leaving clear gaps.

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 none of the 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention page, filter, fields, expand, or any other parameter, so it provides no compensation for the missing parameter documentation. This is a significant gap for a tool with this many 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 opens with the concrete verb 'Lista' and a specific resource ('empresas e filiais do grupo'), and identifies the underlying API (TSIBranches). This makes the tool's purpose clear and differentiates it from the many other protheus_* tools that concern different resources.

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 frames the tool as the 'ponto de partida prático' and explains that its output codes feed the tenantId header and branchId filters of other tools, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not list alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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