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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing what data is returned and that a list of IDs is accepted, going beyond the annotation-only information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, input capability, and output content without redundant words or restating the tool name. Every element adds useful information.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully names the main return elements (treatments, avaliação, score, status) and covers the ID-based input modes. It does not mention behavior for missing IDs or authentication prerequisites, but for a simple read-only lookup tool this is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the tool fetches 'uma ou mais reclamações por id' and 'Aceita lista de ids,' giving meaning to both the singular 'id' and plural 'ids' parameters. It does not fully specify constraints like mutual exclusivity or ID format, but it provides enough semantic context for basic invocation.

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 that the tool retrieves details of one or more complaints by ID ('Detalhe de uma ou mais reclamações por id') and enumerates the included information (conversa completa, avaliação, score, status). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing ID-based lookup rather than listing or reputation.

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 the appropriate context: use this tool when you already have complaint IDs and need full detail. It clarifies that it accepts a list of IDs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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