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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the listing purpose and the expected use of the 'value' field; it does not mention response shape, filtering behavior, authorization requirements, or side effects, leaving the agent to rely on the output 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 two short sentences in Portuguese, front-loading the core purpose and then providing a concrete usage instruction. Zero wasted words.

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 no required parameters, an output schema exists, and the description connects directly to a create counterpart, the information is adequate for selection and invocation. It could benefit from noting whether classifications are language-dependent or paginated, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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% with each parameter (response_profile, sensitive_access_purpose, include_sensitive_details) having its own description and enum values. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so it meets the baseline for schema-provided 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 clearly states the tool lists valid classifications for creating phonograms ('Lista classificações válidas para criar fonogramas') and specifies the output field usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_fonograma or list_generos_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 explicitly instructs the agent to use the returned 'value' field in music360_create_fonograma.classificacao, indicating the tool should be invoked before creating a phonogram. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficient.

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