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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds useful context — the underlying endpoint GET /v1/vendas and the meaning of status values — but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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 compact clauses front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the endpoint reference. Nothing wasted; the status legend is the only element that arguably duplicates schema content.

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-optional-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description plus full schema coverage gives an agent enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is not naming sibling alternatives (get_sale) or summarizing the returned record shape.

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 100%; every one of the 9 parameters is documented in the schema, including the situacao enum. The description's situacao legend and mention of date/contact filtering largely duplicate the schema, so baseline 3 applies rather than added value.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list sales) with the status-value legend (10=quote, 50=sale) that clarifies what 'sales' includes. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling egestor_get_sale, so an agent must infer list-vs-single-record on its own.

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?

It states what can be filtered (date range, contact) so usage is implied, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need the collection, use get_sale for one record' routing. Alternative tools such as egestor_get_sale are never mentioned.

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