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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: product data is partitioned by module, and varejo and mrp are distinct registries rather than two views of the same data. This is a meaningful semantic warning that helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 each sentence adds necessary clarification about module partitioning and source selection. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a 10-parameter read query with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin: it omits filtering, pagination, account handling, return shape, and any prerequisites. The critical varejo/mrp distinction is covered, but most invocation options remain cryptic.

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 across 10 parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only explains fonte and its allowed values. Parameters such as filter, sql_filter, expand, fields, params, account, and page_size remain undocumented, so an agent must guess at their semantics.

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 clearly states the operation ('Consulta') and resource ('cadastro de produtos'), and explicitly defines the two module-specific sources (varejo/mrp). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like protheus_catalogo or protheus_estoque, so the scope is clear but the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 explicit guidance to choose a fonte because Protheus exposes products per module, and it warns that varejo and mrp are separate registries. It does not, however, explain when to prefer this tool over other product-related sibling tools, so the guidance is useful but incomplete.

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