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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds that this is a GET report of type W011A, but it does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or what the response contains. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the report code and endpoint. It is appropriately short, though the 'Relatórios:' prefix is slightly redundant with the report context.

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 and two completely undocumented parameters, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to reliably construct a valid request. The report type and endpoint are clear, but the meaning of query and account, likely important inputs, is missing.

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%, and the two parameters, query and account, are plain strings with no schema descriptions. The tool description does not explain what these parameters mean, how they filter the report, or whether they are required in practice. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies a specific report code (W011A), its content (annual statement of revenues and expenses), and the exact endpoint (GET /balancetes/index). This is more specific than a generic 'list balance sheets' description, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling report tools beyond naming this particular report.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_relatorios_list or the other relatorios_id_* tools. An agent is left to infer that this is the tool for W011A specifically, with no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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