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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the domain rule that a proposal lives inside an opportunity, making `oportunidade_id` mandatory, and the availability of batched execution via `oportunidade_ids` and `ids`. 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and key constraint, and the second covers bulk support. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the core purpose, the required parent ID, and batching, but does not explain how to request a specific proposal (e.g., using the `id` parameter), pagination defaults, output format, or how expand/filter behave. With no output schema, some return-value guidance would be expected. Adequate for a simple tool but with clear gaps for a 13-parameter API.

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 does explain the most critical parameter (`oportunidade_id`) and identifies `oportunidade_ids` and `ids` as bulk parameters. However, the remaining ten parameters (page, order, expand, fields, filter, params, account, page_size, sql_filter, id) receive no explanation, leaving significant semantic gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool's action and resource: 'Lista as propostas comerciais de uma oportunidade, ou consulta uma proposta específica.' It also provides important scoping context by noting that a proposal lives within an opportunity and that `oportunidade_id` is required. This differentiates it from the many sibling protheus_* tools, none of which target commercial proposals.

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 clear usage context: use this tool to list proposals for an opportunity or to query one specific proposal. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but among the siblings there is no competing tool for this resource, so the guidance is sufficient. The bulk support line further clarifies when multiple IDs can be passed.

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