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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: mode affects speed and result count, and bulk support accepts card_ids for batched execution. No contradictions or misleading statements are present.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause earns its place: query semantics, mode behavior, optional filters, and bulk support. There is no filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core usage, mode semantics, filters, and bulk behavior. The main omissions are the account parameter and date format details, and it does not describe result contents, but the annotations plus straightforward search semantics keep it reasonably complete.

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-level parameter descriptions, the description carries the explanatory burden. It defines q as a natural-language query, explains mode's two values and default, lists optional filters, and introduces card_ids bulk behavior. It omits account and exact date_from/date_to format, so it is not perfect, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Busca semântica na sua base Recall' — a specific verb and resource — and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like recall_get_card and recall_list_cards by framing it as natural-language search. It also names the query parameter and optional filters, making the purpose unmistakable.

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: mode has focused (fast, fewer results, default) vs exhaustive (broader coverage) options, and optional filters are listed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the search-vs-fetch/list distinction is strongly implied.

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