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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying that extensive data remains accessible via resultadoId and caminho, and reiterating that it doesn't alter records. It could say more about what the summary contains, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the summary purpose and followed by a useful note on extended data access. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a decent sense of what is returned (status, products, pending, next steps) and mentions a mechanism for extended data. However, with 0% schema coverage on parameters and no output schema, it should do more to explain the inputs and the shape of the returned summary.

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%; neither parameter (solicitacaoId, incluirOfertas) is described in the schema, and the description does not explain them either. The mention of resultadoId and caminho is unrelated to the two actual parameters. The description fails to compensate for the zero schema 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?

States a specific verb (resume/summarize) and resource (the trip request of the connected account), covering status, products, pending items and next steps. It is clear what it does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like consultar_solicitacao or detalhar_solicitacao_completa.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to get a summary of a request's state. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over consultar_solicitacao, detalhar_solicitacao_completa, or buscar_solicitacao, which all appear related. This leaves the agent to infer the choice.

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