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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses the important constraint that only public_uid is accepted (not internal IDs), which is non-obvious. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only or that sensitive response profiles require admin access, though these details are present in the schema. Thus, it provides moderate transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains no filler and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple and the description, combined with the comprehensive schema and existing output schema, covers all essential information for correct usage. The description could be enhanced with a note about response profiles or explicit differentiation from similar list tools, but these are not critical gaps. It is nearly complete for the agent's needs.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all four parameters well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond emphasizing the public_uid-only constraint, which is already stated in the schema's obra_id description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing titulares (composers/authors/editors) associated with an obra. It uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('titulares... vinculados a uma obra'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_obra (which lists obras) and list_fonograma_titulares (which lists titulares for 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need titulares of a specific obra. It also highlights a key usage constraint ('usando somente public_uid'), which is a practical guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used, so it stops short of a 5.

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