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 useful single-vs-batch behavior but does not explain pagination, filtering, or the response shape. This is adequate given the annotations, though 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 two sentences with no filler and fronts the purpose before the usage details. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting clearly separates the base behavior from the bulk mode.

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 tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only explains the two client-identifier parameters. Generic query and pagination parameters remain unexplained, and the expected return payload is not described. An agent could make basic calls but would be guessing about filtering, pagination, and response format.

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 explain the parameters. It only clarifies cliente_id and cliente_ids; the remaining nine parameters (page, order, expand, fields, filter, params, account, page_size, sql_filter) are left completely undocumented. This leaves a large risk of the agent misusing the generic query 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 a specific verb-resource pair, 'Consulta o limite de crédito dos clientes', which clearly identifies what the tool returns. It goes on to distinguish the single-client path (cliente_id) from the batch path (cliente_ids), so an agent can tell its core behavior. It does not explicitly name a sibling for disambiguation, but the credit-limit resource is distinct enough among the protheus_* family.

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 direction: use cliente_id for one client and cliente_ids for batched execution. This is clear context for selecting the right invocation mode. It does not state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but for a read-only query tool the provided guidance is reasonably actionable.

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