Music360 MCP

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions tenant scoping and the public_uid requirement. It fails to mention authentication needs, admin requirements for sensitive data, side effects, or return format. This is a significant gap for a get operation with sensitive options.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While an output schema exists and covers return values, the description lacks context about when sensitive parameters should be used or how they affect the call. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential admin restrictions, this minimal description is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides; the 'public_uid' hint is already in the schema description. Thus, it neither enhances nor detracts.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('consulta um registro de artista'), the resource (artist from current tenant), and the specific key requirement ('usando somente public_uid'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from list_artist and other get tools.

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 description provides a constraint (use public_uid only) but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like music360_list_artist. It does not mention exclusions or the appropriate context for using sensitive profiles.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only query ('consulta'), scoping to the current tenant, and emphasizes the use of public_uid rather than internal numeric ID. This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention sensitive-data access requirements (but schema covers those).

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and object. It avoids redundancies and every word earns its place, including the tenant scope and identifier type.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and a provided output schema, the one-sentence description is adequate for a single-record get operation. It covers the essential purpose and identifier constraint. The output schema handles return value details, and the schema descriptions cover parameter nuances, so the completeness is sufficient with minor ambiguity about the 'usando somente public_uid' phrasing.

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% for all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the id description already states 'public_uid do registro. Não use ID numérico interno.'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Consulta um registro de contato' (queries a contact record) using 'public_uid'. This is a specific verb+resource pair, and the resource type ('contato') distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools for other entities.

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 description implies usage: retrieving a single contact record from the current tenant by public_uid. It clearly distinguishes this from listing (list_contato) or searching, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful context: the operation is scoped to the current tenant and uses only public_uid (not an internal ID). However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling, or confirm read-only behavior explicitly (though 'Consulta' implies a read). No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint. No wasted words, no redundancy with the schema. It is optimally front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description provides sufficient context for the core operation. It communicates the essential details (single record, tenant scope, public_uid) without needing to repeat return structures or parameter enums. Could potentially clarify response_profile behavior, but the schema already covers that.

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?

The schema describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'id' is the public_uid but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already explicitly states 'Não use ID numérico interno', so the description's mention adds minimal 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Consulta'), the resource ('um registro de contrato'), the scope ('tenant atual'), and the specific access method ('usando somente public_uid'). This distinguishes it from list_contrato (which lists many) and other get_* tools for different resource types.

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 description makes the primary use case clear: retrieve a single contract by public_uid. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_contrato or search, nor does it mention exclusions. Still, the context (public_uid and singular 'registro') strongly implies when to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'consulta' (query) and 'usando somente public_uid', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose authorization requirements for sensitive fields, error handling, or any side effects. Given that the schema includes sensitive access parameters, more transparency about admin requirements would be expected.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (query a phonogram record by public_uid). It contains no redundant information and is easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimal but combined with the output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, it provides a functionally adequate overview for a simple get tool. However, it lacks crucial contextual information about the different response profiles (summary/standard/sensitive) and the admin requirement for sensitive details, which the schema alone does not fully clarify. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered, but behavioral context is incomplete.

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%, so the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely highlights public_uid, which is already stated as 'public_uid do registro'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the operation ('Consulta um registro de fonograma do tenant atual') with a specific verb (Consulta) and resource (registro de fonograma), scoped to the current tenant. It also specifies the access method ('usando somente public_uid'), distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools by entity type and from list_fonograma by singular vs. list semantics.

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 description provides clear context: this tool retrieves a single phonogram record by public_uid, implying you should use it when you have a public_uid and need that specific record. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_fonograma, but the sibling naming and the singular 'registro' make the usage context clear. It also notes a constraint ('somente public_uid') which acts as a usage guideline.

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

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

The description adds behavioral constraints like 'usando somente public_uid' (only use public_uid) and scope to 'tenant atual' (current tenant), which are useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or sensitive data handling beyond what the schema parameters indicate, leaving the agent to infer these from the schema.

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?

The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence that conveys the core function without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential purpose.

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?

Given the tool has a rich input schema and an output schema, the terse description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits an overview of sensitive data options and admin requirements, which are only discoverable via parameter descriptions, leaving the agent to infer the full invocation context from the schema alone.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including details about response profiles and sensitive access purposes. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond mentioning public_uid, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool queries a work record from the current tenant using public_uid, with the verb 'Consulta' (query) and resource 'registro de obra' (work record). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools for other entities and from list_obra, which lists records.

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 description implies usage when needing a single work record by public_uid, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_obra or search. It also does not mention exclusions or prerequisites such as admin rights for sensitive profiles, though the schema covers these.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tenant scope and the public_uid-only key, but does not mention the existence of optional response_profile, sensitive details, or admin requirements. 'Consulta' implies read-only, but side effects or permission nuances are not described.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action, resource, scope, and key constraint.

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?

Given the simple get-by-id functionality and the rich input/output schemas, the description is adequately complete. It could be slightly misleading with 'somente public_uid' implying only one parameter, but the optional parameters are well-documented in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of the 'id' parameter by saying 'using only public_uid', but adds no new information about the other three parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('consulta' - queries), the resource ('notícia/press release'), and the scope ('tenant atual') with a specific lookup key ('public_uid'). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_press_release tool.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve a single press release via public_uid, and implicitly when you have the public_uid from a list or search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'somente public_uid' constraint is a strong usage cue.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and behavior. 'Consulta' suggests read-only, but it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or disclose sensitive data handling/admin requirements for sensitive profiles. It adds tenant scoping, but transparency is limited for a tool with sensitive data options.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple get tool and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, but full schema coverage and an output schema. The description adequately identifies the tool's purpose but omits mention of response profiles and sensitive access conditions, which are left to schema descriptions. It is sufficient but not thorough for a tool with such parameters.

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%: the id parameter is fully described as public_uid, and response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, and include_sensitive_details all have detailed descriptions. The tool description only reinforces the id constraint without adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the action (consulta), the resource (registro de produto fonográfico), and the lookup method (public_uid), with tenant scoping. It effectively distinguishes itself from other get_* tools by naming the specific resource type and identifier method.

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 description provides clear usage context: current tenant and public_uid-only lookup. It implies single-record retrieval, but does not explicitly contrast with list/search tools or mention when to use response_profile alternatives, though the structure suggests retrieval for a known public_uid.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a read ('consulta') and constrains it to the current tenant and public_uid only, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or the behavior around sensitive fields, which are only partially covered in the schema. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with the verb first. It conveys the core purpose and key constraint without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 single-record get tool with a rich output schema, the one-sentence description is largely sufficient. It establishes the scope (current tenant) and the identifier rule. The sensitive access details are adequately covered by the parameter descriptions in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that sensitive fields may require admin, but the schema covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'usando somente public_uid' reinforces the id parameter's semantics, but the schema already states 'public_uid do registro. Não use ID numérico interno.' No additional meaning is added for the other three parameters (response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, include_sensitive_details).

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Consulta' = queries), a clear resource ('registro de show'), and a scope ('tenant atual'). It also adds the method constraint 'usando somente public_uid', which distinguishes it from sibling list tools and clarifies the identifier type, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 description implies when to use this tool: to fetch a single show record by public_uid within the current tenant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as using list_show for multiple records or other get_* tools for different entities. The 'somente public_uid' hint provides some guidance but no exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it queries a task record and uses public_uid; it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention authorization requirements for sensitive fields, or describe error behavior.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No superfluous information.

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?

The description is minimal but the schema and output schema provide rich parameter and return documentation. However, it does not mention the sensitive access parameters or admin requirements, which is important context for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces that 'id' is the public_uid but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the 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?

The description uses the verb 'Consulta' and specifies the resource 'registro de tarefa' (task record), scoped to 'tenant atual' and using 'public_uid'. This clearly distinguishes it from list_tarefa and other get_* siblings.

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 description implies usage for retrieving a single task by public_uid but does not explicitly state when to use it over list_tarefa or other tools. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds value by disclosing tenant scoping and that only public_uid is accepted (not numeric ID). However, it does not mention permissions for sensitive profiles or error behavior, though the schema covers some parameter semantics.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, resource, scope, and constraint efficiently.

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?

Given the rich schema (4 params, output schema) and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple get operation but minimal. It focuses on the core purpose and public_uid constraint, leaving optional parameter behavior to the schema. It doesn't elaborate on when to use response_profile or sensitive access fields, but return values are covered by the output schema.

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%, so all parameters are well documented. The description reinforces the key constraint on 'id' (must be public_uid), which is already in the schema description. It adds no further semantic detail for the optional parameters like response_profile.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'consulta' (query) with the resource 'registro de videograma' and scope 'tenant atual', and explicitly states the constraint 'usando somente public_uid'. This clearly indicates a single-record retrieval for videograms, distinguishing it from list/search siblings.

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 description implies usage: retrieve a single videogram by public_uid. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_videograma or specify when-not to use this tool, but the verb and the public_uid constraint indirectly guide selection. No exclusions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral detail ('sem IDs internos') indicating that the output excludes internal identifiers. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, which is important for a healthcheck. The read-only nature is implied by 'Retorna status' but not explicitly disclosed.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence in Portuguese that is front-loaded with the main action ('Retorna status operacional resumido') and includes a relevant output qualifier ('sem IDs internos'). No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params) and an output schema is declared, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the core purpose, the tenant scope, and a key output detail. It could arguably mention what 'operational status' includes, but the output schema likely fills that gap, making the description adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline starts at 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist. The 'sem IDs internos' note is about output, not parameters. Since the schema is empty, there is no gap to compensate for.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retorna'), resource ('status operacional resumido do conector MCP'), and scope ('para o tenant autenticado'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like music360_get_* and music360_list_* which are all about specific data entities, whereas this is a health check.

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 by the tool name and description ('healthcheck' suggests checking operational status). However, there is no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description gives clear context (authenticated tenant, summarized status) but no direct guidance like 'use this to verify connectivity' or 'instead of X'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions tenant scoping but fails to disclose pagination behavior, default response profiles, sensitive data access requirements, or that the operation is read-only. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler. This is an ideal concise description.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely underspecified. It does not mention pagination, filtering, ordering, or the existence of sensitive data profiles. The agent would have to infer all context from the schema, which is only partially self-descriptive.

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 only 63%, leaving parameters like page, search, and per_page without schema-level descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter context whatsoever, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It only clarifies the tenant scope, not parameter semantics.

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?

The description 'Lista registros de artista do tenant atual' clearly states the action (list), the resource (artist records), and the scope (current tenant). It distinguishes this tool from sibling get_* tools and other list_* tools by naming the specific entity.

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 description implies usage for listing artist records in the current tenant, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_artist for a single record). It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results depend on the authenticated user's scopes and role and are restricted to enabled tools, implying read-only behavior, but it does not mention side effects, response format, or rate limits. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. No wasted words or redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks usage timing and does not explain the access-control nuances around sensitive parameters, though those are covered by the schema.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, include_sensitive_details), so the description falling to add parameter-specific meaning is acceptable. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('ferramentas MCP habilitadas') with scope ('para o usuário autenticado conforme escopos e papel'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on individual entities.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description, and there is no contrast with the entity-specific list/get siblings.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Lista classificações válidas', which implies a read-only operation, but it fails to mention behavioral nuances such as the existence of sensitive classifications requiring admin scope, or any default response profile behavior. This leaves important gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool meets its needs.

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?

The description consists of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action and purpose. It contains zero filler and every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness.

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 is present, so return values are already documented. For a simple reference-list tool, the description adequately explains the purpose and the linkage to the create flow. It could have mentioned sensitive access nuances, but the schema already describes those parameters, so the description is sufficiently complete in context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the only additional context is the instruction to use the 'value' field in music360_create_fonograma, which relates to the return value rather than the input parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists valid classifications for creating phonograms, using the verb 'Lista' and the specific resource 'classificações válidas para criar fonogramas'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by linking the output directly to the create flow (music360_create_fonograma.classificacao), making its purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context: use this tool to obtain valid classification values for creating phonograms, and it gives an explicit instruction to use the returned 'value' in the create tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the reference to the create flow implies the intended use case, which is sufficient for a focused reference list.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states that records are listed. It omits important behavioral traits like default response profiles, sensitive data handling requiring admin access, and pagination behavior, all of which are relevant given the schema.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant or filler 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?

Despite having an output schema and multiple parameters including sensitive access controls, the description is minimal. It fails to provide context about filtering, pagination, response profiles, or how sensitive data is gated, making it incomplete for safe and effective invocation.

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?

The description adds no meaning to the input schema parameters. While the schema covers 63% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description itself provides zero parameter context, and the uncovered parameters (page, search, per_page) remain unexplained.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists contact records for the current tenant, using the specific verb 'Lista' and naming the resource 'registros de contato'. This distinguishes it from singular get tools like music360_get_contato and from list tools for other entities.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use get_contato instead. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or any exclusion criteria, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only mentions tenant scoping. It does not explicitly disclose read-only behavior, permission requirements, or side effects, though 'list' implies a read operation. Additional contextual details like response profiles are left to parameter descriptions.

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?

The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a listing tool, though it omits context that could be useful, but brevity here is a strength.

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?

The description is minimal and does not cover the tool's complexity, such as response profiles or sensitive details. However, the output schema and parameter descriptions fill many gaps, and the tenant scoping provides key context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The description adds no information about parameters. Schema coverage is 63%, leaving some parameters undocumented, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter behavior or purpose beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Lista' (list) and the resource 'registros de contrato do tenant atual' (contract records of the current tenant), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like music360_get_contrato (single record) and music360_list_contrato_partes (contract parts).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_contrato should be used for a single contract or any other exclusions, relying solely on the tool name to imply a listing operation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the listing uses public_uid, which is more about input than behavior. It does not disclose that 'sensitive' response profiles require admin authorization, that summary is the default, or any other side effects or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool handling potentially sensitive contract party data.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and basic input requirement.

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?

The description adequately covers the core purpose and required parameter, but it omits context around the optional response profiles and the conditional 'sensitive_access_purpose' requirement. While the output schema likely documents return values and the input schema documents parameters, the description does not help the agent decide when to use sensitive options or what to expect if admin authorization is missing. This leaves noticeable gaps for a tool with sensitive-data handling.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing that the basic listing requires only the contract's public_uid. It does not elaborate on response profiles or sensitive access conditions, but the schema already covers those details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: listing contract parties (contractor/contractee/intervener) associated with a contract using the public_uid. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contrato (which lists contracts) and get_contrato (which fetches a single contract). The verb 'Lista' and specific resource 'partes' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve parties of a contract, requiring only the contract's public_uid. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'usando somente public_uid' note clarifies the minimal input needed. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the list operation and tenant scope. It does not mention pagination behavior, response profiles, admin requirements for sensitive details, or filtering/search capabilities, despite these being relevant to invocation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope.

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?

The schema is relatively rich and includes an output schema, so the one-line description is adequate for basic invocation, but it lacks explicit mention of pagination, filtering, and sensitive access contexts. Given the 8-parameter complexity, the description alone is not fully complete.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 63%, and while several parameters have descriptions, page, search, and per_page rely on name inference; the description does not fill this gap.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Lista' (lists) with the resource 'registros de fonograma' (phonogram records) and adds scope 'do tenant atual' (of current tenant), making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this list operation from sibling get/detail tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as music360_get_fonograma or music360_list_fonograma_titulares. The description only states what the tool does, without exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case context.

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

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

Sem anotações fornecidas, a descrição carrega a responsabilidade de revelar comportamento. 'Lista' implica uma operação de leitura, e 'somente public_uid' é uma restrição útil. No entanto, não informa sobre níveis de permissão, efeitos colaterais (inexistentes) ou como os parâmetros sensíveis afetam a resposta, deixando lacunas que o schema precisa cobrir.

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?

Uma frase única, direta e sem redundância. Todos os elementos essenciais estão presentes: ação, objeto, contexto (fonograma) e condição (public_uid). Não há palavras desnecessárias.

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?

Para uma ferramenta de listagem simples, com output schema disponível e parâmetros bem documentados, a descrição cobre o essencial. Não aborda paginação ou perfis de resposta, mas esses detalhes estão no schema. A ausência de menção a alternativas afeta levemente a completude contextual.

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?

Com cobertura de schema de 100%, o baseline é 3. A descrição agrega valor ao explicar que o identificador é exclusivamente public_uid (esclarecendo que não se usa ID interno) e ao definir o que são 'titulares' (intérpretes/músicos/produtores), enriquecendo semanticamente os parâmetros além do que o schema lista.

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?

A descrição usa o verbo específico 'Lista' com o recurso 'titulares' vinculados a um fonograma, distinguindo-se claramente de ferramentas como music360_list_fonograma (que lista fonogramas) e music360_list_obra_titulares (que lista titulares de obras). A inclusão de 'intérpretes/músicos/produtores' e 'usando somente public_uid' torna o escopo preciso.

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?

A frase 'usando somente public_uid' indica uma condição de uso (requer apenas o public_uid), mas a descrição não menciona explicitamente alternativas ou quando evitar esta ferramenta em favor de outras. O contexto é claro, porém sem exclusões ou comparações diretas com ferramentas irmãs.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool lists valid genres and how to use the output, but does not disclose behavior such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, returns only active genres, or how pagination works. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant wording, and the instruction about using the 'value' field is directly relevant. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers what the tool lists and how to use the result. However, it misses mentioning the optional sensitive parameters, which are documented in the schema, so the description alone is not fully complete but sufficient given structured data.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any clarification about the input parameters (response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, include_sensitive_details) beyond what the schema already provides. It only refers to the output 'value' field, not the parameters.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Lista gêneros válidos') and a specific resource (genres for phonograms), distinguishing it from sibling tools like music360_list_classificacoes_fonograma. The verb 'Lista' and the object 'gêneros válidos para criar fonogramas' are unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage context by instructing the agent to use the 'value' field in music360_create_fonograma.genero, making it clear this is the reference list for that creation flow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only states the basic listing operation. It does not mention pagination, response profiles, sensitive data handling, or any other behavioral traits beyond the implicit read-only nature of 'lista'.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action and subject, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, sensitive access profiles, output schema), the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, response profiles, sensitive details requirements, or any operational nuances, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation.

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?

The description adds no information about parameters. While the schema covers 63% of parameters with descriptions (order_by, order_dir, response_profile, etc.), the remaining parameters (page, search, per_page) lack definitions, and the description does not compensate for these gaps or reinforce any parameter usage.

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?

The description 'Lista registros de obra do tenant atual' clearly states a specific verb (list), resource (obra records), and scope (current tenant). It distinguishes itself from sibling list_ tools by specifying the entity type 'obra', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as music360_get_obra or music360_list_obra_titulares. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose the key constraint of using public_uid instead of internal numeric ID. However, it does not mention that sensitive details may require admin scope, nor does it describe any side effects or rate limits. The description adds some transparency (public_uid requirement) but omits other potentially important behaviors.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and the key constraint. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is an ideal example of brevity without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough to understand the core purpose but lacks guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The schema covers parameter details, and the output schema handles return values, but the description does not address usage context or sensitive access behavior, which leaves some gaps in completeness for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter has a description in the input schema. The main description only reiterates the public_uid constraint for the 'obra_id' parameter, which is already fully described in the schema. Since the schema provides complete parameter semantics, the description adds little beyond that, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and identifies the resource as 'titulares (compositores/autores/editores) vinculados a uma obra'. It also adds the scope 'usando somente public_uid', which distinguishes it from similar list tools for other entities (e.g., list_fonograma_titulares). This is a clear and specific purpose statement.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools. It implies usage through the constraint 'usando somente public_uid' (you need a public_uid for an obra), but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or preferred scenarios. Thus, usage context is implied but not fully spelled out.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the tenant scoping (do tenant atual), but it omits important behaviors like pagination defaults, read-only nature, and the existence of sensitive fields requiring admin scope. It does not explain what the response contains or any rate limits.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with a clear verb-first structure ('Lista...'). It front-loads the action and resource, contains no redundant wording, and is appropriately sized for a list operation.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, including sensitive mode handling, the description provides minimal context. It doesn't mention the pagination, search, or the security implications of response_profile=sensitive. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the overall behavioral context is insufficient for an agent to decide when to pass response_profile or include_sensitive_details without further inference.

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 50% (3 out of 6 parameters described). The description adds no parameter information. The described parameters (response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, include_sensitive_details) have clear schema documentation, while the remaining (page, search, per_page) are self-explanatory by name. The description neither compensates nor contradicts the 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?

The description clearly states a specific action (Lista = Lists), a specific resource (notícias/press releases), and a scope (do tenant atual = of the current tenant). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_press_release and other list_* tools by indicating batch listing vs individual retrieval.

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 from the tool name and description: it lists press releases. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_press_release, nor any mention of pagination/search behavior or sensitive access scenarios. It offers no alternatives or exclusions, so it falls at 'implied usage'.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses tenant scoping, the default released-only filter, and how to include non-released items. This is sufficient for a listing operation, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or permission requirements for sensitive data (which are partially covered in the schema).

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?

The description is concise (three sentences), starts with the primary action, and each sentence provides distinct value: purpose, domain usage, and default behavior with override. There is no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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?

Given that most parameters have schema descriptions and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for using the tool correctly. It clearly covers the core behavior and domain, though it omits a few details like search semantics, which are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for release_scope by explaining its effect on result inclusion, and it clarifies the domain of 'produto fonográfico'. However, it doesn't explain the undocumented parameters (page, search, per_page), and with 70% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the gaps.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists phonographic product records for the current tenant, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides domain context (albums, singles, EPs) that helps differentiate it from sibling tools like list_fonograma.

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 description gives explicit use cases ('Use esta tool para álbuns, singles, EPs...') and explains the default release_scope behavior with a clear override. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states it is a list operation and requires only public_uid, but it does not disclose the existence of sensitive response profiles or admin access requirements that are visible in the schema parameters. The phrase 'somente public_uid' could mislead agents into thinking no special permissions or options exist.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action and resource.

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?

The description, combined with the complete schema and output schema, is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The only gap is the lack of mention of sensitive parameters, but these are clearly documented in the schema, so the description is adequate for a simple list tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that public_uid is the identifier, adding little beyond the schema. It does not explain the response_profile or sensitive_access_purpose parameters, but these are already well-described in the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists tracks (tracklist) of a phonographic product using public_uid. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like music360_list_produto_fonografico which list products themselves.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving tracklists for a specific product, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as music360_get_produto_fonografico or music360_list_fonograma. No clear when-to-use or exclusions are stated, only the context of needing tracks for a product.

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

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

While annotations are absent, the description discloses that it operates on the current tenant, which is a mild behavioral constraint. However, it provides no details on pagination, ordering, filtering, or sensitive access requirements, so transparency is minimal.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is so terse that it provides no useful information beyond the tool's name, making it under-specified rather than helpfully concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 8 parameters, the description doesn't mention pagination, ordering, response profiles, or sensitive data handling. This crude one-liner is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior, although the output schema reduces the need to describe returns.

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?

With 63% schema description coverage, the schema already documents many parameters, but the description adds no additional meaning. Parameters like page and search are left without any contextual explanation in the description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists show records for the current tenant, using a specific verb and resource. The resource name 'show' differentiates it from sibling list tools for other entities, though it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_show or search. It simply describes the action, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior but only states 'lists' without mentioning pagination, ordering, sensitive details, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with response profiles and sensitive access parameters.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, as it omits crucial usage and behavior details that would justify a higher score.

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?

With 8 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It provides no context about pagination, response formats, or when to use this tool, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema covers 63% of parameters with descriptions (order_by, order_dir, response_profile, etc.), but page, search, and per_page lack descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the agent must rely solely on the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Lista' and resource 'registros de tarefa' with tenant scope, distinguishing it from get_tarefa and other list tools. However, it lacks detail on filtering or pagination, making it slightly under-specified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tarefa or other list_* tools. The description simply states the action without context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool lists and how to use the output; it does not mention that the operation is read-only, any access requirements for sensitive categories, error behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with sensitive parameters.

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?

The description consists of two short, focused sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a direct usage instruction. There is no redundant or misleading information.

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 simple list tool with a full output schema and a clear usage pointer, the description covers essential context. However, given the absence of annotations and the presence of sensitive-related parameters, a brief note about admin scope or permission prerequisites would make it more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter (response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, include_sensitive_details) already has a clear description. The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters themselves; it only references the output value. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Lista categorias válidas para criar tarefas' (lists valid categories for creating tasks). It also provides a specific downstream use case ('Use o campo value em music360_create_tarefa.categoria'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_tarefas_fases and list_tarefas_status.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance by telling the caller to use the returned 'value' field in the create_tarefa tool's categoria parameter. This establishes when to use it (before creating a task), but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool returns valid phases, implying a read-only lookup, but does not mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or behavior around sensitive data. For a simple list tool this is acceptable, but it lacks explicit safety or security context.

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 deliver the purpose and usage in a front-loaded manner. No redundant words; every element contributes.

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?

The tool is a simple reference list with no required parameters, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The description provides the necessary usage context ('Use the value field...') and the purpose is clear. It fully satisfies the needs for this tool.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, include_sensitive_details), fulfilling 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, staying at the baseline for tools with complete schema documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Lista fases válidas para criar tarefas' (Lists valid phases for creating tasks). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'fases' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tarefas_status and list_tarefas_categorias.

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 explicitly instructs to use the returned 'value' in 'music360_create_tarefa.fase', giving a concrete usage scenario. However, it does not mention when to use this tool instead of other list tools, nor any exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the listing purpose and the direct usage of the result, but it does not explicitly indicate that the operation is read-only or describe any security or permission implications beyond the schema's own parameters. The read-only nature is implied by the name 'list', but not explicitly disclosed.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately providing actionable usage guidance. There is zero redundant content, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple reference-list tool with an output schema and all parameters documented in the schema, the description is adequate. It gives the core purpose and identifies how to consume the result. The only omission is an explicit read-only disclosure, but the simplicity of the tool and existing schema coverage keep this from being a major gap.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the three parameters with individual descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, but it does add value by explaining how to use the returned 'value' field, which is arguably more about output semantics than input parameters.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists valid statuses for creating tasks, using a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('status válidos'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like music360_list_tarefa (lists tasks) and music360_list_tarefas_categorias (categories).

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 description explicitly instructs the agent to use the returned 'value' field as the status parameter in music360_create_tarefa, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core function and how to integrate with another tool, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, or characteristics of the returned data. For a simple list operation, this is partially sufficient but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the practical usage hint in the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no required parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the essential purpose and provides a cross-reference to a related tool, which is sufficient for most use cases. It could have mentioned the read-only nature explicitly, but the absence of annotations does not critically hinder usage.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all three parameters (response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, include_sensitive_details). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but since the schema already documents them thoroughly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and resource 'tipos válidos para criar videogramas', making it clear what the tool does. It also references the exact field in music360_create_videograma, distinguishing it from other list_* tools and showing its unique purpose.

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 description explicitly instructs how to use the output ('Use o campo value em music360_create_videograma.videogramas_tipo_id'), providing clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the tool's specificity.

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

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

The description implies a read-only operation through 'Lista' and adds tenant scoping, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response profiles, or sensitive-data handling, despite the schema exposing such features.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the purpose and scope, making it highly concise.

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?

Given the tool's 8 parameters, including sensitive profiles and ordering options, the one-line description is severely under-specified. It omits any mention of pagination, filtering, ordering, or security requirements, leaving the schema to carry the full explanatory burden.

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?

The description makes no mention of any parameters, and the schema covers only 63% of them. Parameters like 'page', 'search', and 'per_page' lack descriptions in both the schema and the tool text, so the description adds no semantic 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?

The description uses the verb 'Lista' and identifies the resource as 'registros de videograma', making the tool's purpose explicit. The addition of 'do tenant atual' scopes the operation and differentiates it from sibling list tools for other entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like music360_search or other list tools. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the search is read-only, how results are aggregated, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The only added context is the list of entity types, which is minimal.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. There is no redundant information or fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, the description is very thin: it lacks any explanation of matching behavior, result ordering, or limitations such as whether all entities are searched simultaneously. It is minimally adequate but leaves several gaps.

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?

The description mentions no parameters. The schema provides a description for 'query' but not for 'limit'. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what a user can infer from parameter names and constraints.

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?

The description clearly states it's a unified search across a specific list of entity types (artists, works, phonograms, products, contacts, contracts, news, tasks). It uses a specific verb 'Busca unificada' and distinguishes it from the sibling get/list tools which are entity-specific.

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 description implies usage for cross-entity searches but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the individual list/get tools. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool should or shouldn't be used.

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