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, but it only states the tenant scope. It does not mention read-only behavior, pagination defaults, sensitive data handling, or permission requirements. The schema includes response_profile and sensitive_details parameters, but the description does not explain their operational implications.

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 in Portuguese that front-loads the verb and object, with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, even though completeness is lacking elsewhere.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters, sensitive data profiles, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination defaults, search behavior, or how the response_profile affects the output. While an output schema exists, it cannot compensate for missing usage context and operational behavior.

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 63%, and many parameters have inline descriptions (e.g., order_by, response_profile). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema; parameters like page, search, and per_page rely on conventional meaning. Since coverage is moderate and the description does not hinder understanding, a 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 'Lista registros de contrato do tenant atual' clearly states the verb (lists), resource (contract records), and scope (current tenant), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like music360_get_contrato (single record) and music360_list_contrato_partes (contract parts). No ambiguity exists.

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 search or get_contrato. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different listing tool would be more appropriate. The existence of sibling tools implies a decision, but the description does not address it.

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