Server has 10 tools with complete schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun convention (listar_, buscar_, propor_, aplicar_, rejeitar_). Descriptions are present (avg ~120 chars) and explain WHAT and WHEN. However, parameter descriptions lack detail on constraints (e.g., date format validation, price bounds, array item types). Output schemas are documented in code but not formally declared in tool definitions. Error handling is minimal, no recovery guidance or actionable error messages. Two-phase proposal pattern (propor_* → aplicar_*) is well-designed for safety but lacks explicit confirmation/dry-run semantics. Missing: per-parameter type validation hints, enum constraints for categorical inputs, and structured error responses.

• Add JSON Schema pattern constraints: date parameters should have 'pattern': '^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}$' and description 'ISO 8601 date (YYYY-MM-DD)'.
• Add minimum/maximum to numeric parameters: pagina (min 1), limite (min 1, max 100), top_n (min 1, max 50), novo_preco (min 0.01), max_pedidos (min 1, max 1000).
• Wrap all tool implementations in try-except blocks. Return structured error objects: {error: string, code: string, recovery: string}. E.g., 'error: "Invalid date range", code: "INVALID_DATE", recovery: "Use YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g., 2024-01-15"'.
• Document output schemas in tool descriptions. E.g., 'Returns array of {id: int, nome: string, preco: float, estoque: float}' or link to a schema definition.
• Add tool annotations to destructive operations: mark aplicar_alteracoes_aprovadas and rejeitar_propostas with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false to signal to LLMs that these are irreversible.