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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. It adds bulk support and module requirement, which are useful beyond annotations. However, it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or return format, leaving some gaps. The additional context justifies a 3.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences—with no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, and bulk support are all stated efficiently. The structure is front-loaded and clear.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description only covers a fraction of them and does not explain return values, pagination, filtering, or how to combine parameters. This is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 only 'id' and 'ids' (for bulk) but leaves 9 other parameters (page, order, expand, fields, filter, params, account, page_size, sql_filter) entirely undocumented. This is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 queries retail sales ("Consulta as vendas do varejo") or a single sale by internal id, which is specific and clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like protheus_pedidos_varejo, so it lacks the sibling differentiation that would warrant a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual note is a prerequisite ("Exige o módulo de varejo publicado nesta instalação"), which is not usage guidance. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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