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. It discloses the default filtering behavior (only released items) and the effect of release_scope=all, which is valuable. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response profile defaults, or sensitive data handling, which are relevant for a list tool with many parameters.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the main purpose, then provide usage context and a critical default behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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's complexity (10 parameters, output schema present, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation: it explains the core use case, tenant scope, and the most important parameter (release_scope). While it does not mention response profiles or sensitive data, the schema covers those details, so the description is adequately complete for selection and basic invocation.

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 70%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to key parameters by explaining that 'lançamento' refers to data_lancamento and clarifying the default behavior of release_scope. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions and helps the agent understand the primary filtering 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') and resource ('registros de produto fonográfico') with a clear scope ('tenant atual'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the domain (álbuns, singles, EPs) and usage context, making it distinct from other list tools and the corresponding get_produto_fonografico tool.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use esta tool para álbuns, singles, EPs e pedidos sobre lançamento musical mais recente') and provides guidance on the default release_scope behavior. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools as exclusions, but the intended context is clear.

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