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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the authorization scope needed and what the payload contains, which is meaningful. It does not state that the call is read-only/non-mutating in explicit terms or clarify whether the artist default setlists are always included or conditionally returned, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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, with the primary capability and returned content front-loaded and the permission requirement trailing as a constraint. Every clause carries information; only a minor tightening would be possible.

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 read-only retrieval tool with a fully documented 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, content, and the authorization gate. It still omits how this differs operationally from the other show-related list tools and whether the default artist setlists are merged into the same response, which an agent would want before calling.

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 show_id, response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, and include_sensitive_details are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., no note on how response_profile affects the setlist payload), so 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?

States a specific verb ("Mostra") and resource ("o setlist do show") and enumerates the returned content — blocos, músicas, falas, durações — plus the extra scope of artist default setlists usable as templates. This lets an agent distinguish it from music360_list_show_musicas or music360_list_show_roteiro by content, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 permission requirement ("Exige 'Visualizar roteiro de show'") is a concrete precondition, and the mention that default artist setlists serve as models hints at a use case. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling list tools that also cover show music and roteiro, so the guidance remains implied.

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