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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the required permission and the shape of the returned data, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how the sensitive/response_profile parameters alter behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads what is listed and what comes back, the second front-loads the permission gate. No filler or 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 four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description substitutes well by naming the returned fields and the access prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and the effect of the sensitive profile options.

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 schema already explains show_id format and the response_profile/sensitive_access_purpose/include_sensitive_details semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lista a equipe escalada de um show") and enumerates the exact fields returned (ref, nome, função, tipo interno/externo, status do convite). This makes it unmistakable against siblings such as music360_list_show_musicas, music360_list_show_roteiro or music360_get_show, which cover different aspects of a show.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name, and the description adds a concrete prerequisite ("Exige 'Visualizar equipe do show'"). However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over related show tools, no exclusions, and no note on pagination or empty-result cases.

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