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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions scopes and role, which hints at authorization, but fails to disclose that sensitive outputs may require admin privileges (as evidenced by the response_profile and include_sensitive_details parameters) or that a purpose is mandatory for sensitive access. The description also doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or return format.

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. Every word contributes to meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and contains no 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?

The tool has an output schema and the description gives the core purpose, but the description is minimal for a security-sensitive introspection tool. It does not mention the sensitive response profiles, admin requirements, or the fact that a purpose field is required for sensitive access. While the schema covers the parameters, the description should provide more behavioral context for an agent to understand when admin approval is needed or how to handle sensitive responses. Overall, adequate for a simple listing operation but lacking depth given no annotations.

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 all three parameters are already documented with their enums and defaults. The description adds no additional semantic value about the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully describes the 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 uses a specific verb ('Lista' - lists) and clearly identifies the resource ('ferramentas MCP habilitadas' - enabled MCP tools) and scope ('usuário autenticado conforme escopos e papel' - per authenticated user's scopes/role). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-list tools like music360_list_artist or music360_list_obra, which all list specific entity 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or any alternatives. It does not mention exploring capabilities at session start, nor does it state that it is for introspection only. The purpose is implied but not stated as a direct use case, and there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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