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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety. The description adds the bulk execution behavior via 'ids' and the list-or-single query distinction, which is useful 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, front-loaded with the core function and a separate line for bulk support. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention common query options (page, order, filters, expand, fields) nor response shape, leaving agents to guess or rely on patterns from other tools.

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% for 11 parameters. The description only clarifies 'id' and 'ids' (internal id and bulk), leaving pagination, filtering, ordering, expansion, field selection, and account parameters undocumented. It fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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: it lists registered carriers or queries one by internal id. This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes the tool from siblings like protheus_clientes_fornecedores by naming the resource 'transportadoras' explicitly.

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 implies usage for carrier lookups via the tool name, but it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It only hints at bulk support, not a decision criterion.

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