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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only listing behavior and purpose, but doesn't elaborate on sensitive data handling, response size, or potential admin requirements. The schema hints at sensitive parameters, but the description stays silent, leaving a moderate gap.

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, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second gives a cross-tool usage hint. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 with no required parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose and how to use the result with another tool. However, it omits any mention of response_profile or sensitive access parameters, though these 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about the parameters themselves, merely referencing the output 'value' field, which is not a parameter. Thus it doesn't exceed the schema's already thorough 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 clearly states 'Lista gêneros válidos para criar fonogramas' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on phonogram genres and their use in creating fonogramas.

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 tells the agent to 'Use o campo value em music360_create_fonograma.genero', providing a concrete usage instruction for when to use the tool. While it doesn't mention explicit alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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