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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them ('consulta somente leitura', 'Não reautentica nem salva o contrato'). It adds behavior the annotations cannot carry: a 100-event / 90-day retrieval cap and the explicit caution that an authentication refusal is not evidence of a contract restriction.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: scope first, then parameter behavior, then the two negative constraints. The parenthetical stage list is long but earns its place by telling the agent what the event stream contains.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by enumerating the stages the events cover (entry, authentication, config read, quote validation, persistence) plus the volume and time window. Combined with the read-only guarantees and the interpretation caveat, an agent has enough to call the tool and read the result correctly; only the 'source' enum remains unexplained.

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 carry the load. It does this well for supportCode (filters a single attempt; omitting it triggers the 100-event/90-day listing), but the 'source' enum (wix | mcp) is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters entirely undefined for the caller.

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?

States a specific operation (read-only consultation of contract configuration stages) on a specific resource (the Correios contract of this store), with the enumerated stages spelling out exactly what is inspected. The framing 'investigar por que o contrato não foi aceito' cleanly separates it from the label- and quote-level siblings (diagnose_label_issue, diagnose_quote_issue) without needing to name them.

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?

Gives concrete usage routing on the parameter axis: with supportCode it narrows to a single attempt, without it returns up to 100 events from the last 90 days. It also sets an interpretation rule ('authentication refused does not prove a contractual restriction'), which steers the agent away from a wrong conclusion. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling diagnostic tools.

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