query_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it returns a paginated summary rather than full properties, and documents that limit 0 means the default. It does not cover pagination edge cases or rate/scope limits, but for a read-only query it is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then clearly sectioned when-to-use, parameters, and a worked example. Dense but every sentence carries information; the trailing example is useful rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. Combined with complete parameter coverage, explicit usage guidance, and a sibling alternative, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 carries the full burden and does so for all 7 parameters: type (DXF names, comma list, aliases like "block"/"polyline"), layer (wildcards * and ?), block_name (INSERT only, uses effective name so dynamic blocks match), bbox (format and coordinate unit), bbox_mode (window vs crossing semantics), and limit/offset (pagination, limit 0 = default). This is meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 ("Busca entidades"), the resource, the mechanism (SelectionSet + DXF codes), and the return shape ("resumo paginado"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_entity, which returns full properties, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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 "QUANDO USAR" section gives concrete when-to-use examples (all lines on layer X, blocks of a type, texts in a region) and names the alternative, get_entity(handle), with the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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