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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no need to restate safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by describing the output granularity (headers, full table, items+prices) for each argument combination, which goes beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences, purpose-led, with no superfluous content. The three usage modes are packed efficiently and are immediately understandable.

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?

Given no output schema and a complex 11-parameter input, the description is incomplete. It covers the primary modes but omits any information about return format, error cases, or the purpose of the many generic parameters (e.g., page, filter, sql_filter). An agent would struggle to use the full capability of the tool based on this description alone.

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 explains the semantics of only two parameters (codigo and itens) out of 11; the other nine (page, order, filter, fields, expand, params, account, page_size, sql_filter) remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without guidance on pagination, filtering, or selection.

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 resource (price tables) and the verb (consulta/query), and explicitly distinguishes three usage modes based on arguments (no args, with codigo, with codigo+itens), which differentiates it from the many protheus_* sibling tools that target other 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?

It clearly states when to use the tool — to query price tables — and explains the argument-driven variations, which serves as usage guidance. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous given the resource-specific naming of siblings.

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