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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool lists valid phases and explicitly points to the 'value' field in the output, providing insight into the response structure and integration with the create tool. This is sufficient for a simple read-only enumeration tool.

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 sentences long, front-loads the main verb ('Lista'), and provides immediate, actionable context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 validation-list tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and use it correctly. It explains the purpose, the output field to consume, and how to integrate with a related tool. Additional details like pagination are not necessary for this straightforward use case.

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 covers all three parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 valid phases for creating tasks. It specifies the resource ('fases válidas') and the target use case, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_tarefas_categorias and list_tarefas_status.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Use o campo value em music360_create_tarefa.fase' tells exactly how to apply the results, making the intended context clear. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the reference to a specific create tool serves as a practical alternative.

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