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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description's 'Consulta' is consistent with those. The description adds some behavioral value with 'Bulk support: accepts branch_ids for batched execution', but it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or API limits, so its additional transparency is modest.

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 compact at three sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information: core purpose, parameter/filter semantics, and bulk behavior. The unannounced switch between Portuguese and English and the unformatted filter list are minor structural blemishes.

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 12 parameters, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no output schema, so the description should cover return format, pagination, and top-level filter/query syntax. It explains only a subset of parameters and says nothing about the response shape or how page, filter, and sql_filter behave, leaving an agent materially under-informed.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It does name key filters such as branchId, product, warehouse, deliveryDate, startDate, plus branch_id, codigo, and branch_ids. However, it leaves page, order, expand, fields, filter, account, page_size, and sql_filter unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 'Consulta as ordens de produção do MRP', stating a specific verb and resource, and clarifies that it can fetch a single order using branch_id and codigo. It clearly identifies the tool as a read-only MRP production-order query, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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 useful context: filters can be passed in params, a specific order is retrieved with branch_id and codigo, and branch_ids enables batched execution. It lacks explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance, but the provided usage modes are clear.

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