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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, and the note about using the 'value' field reveals response structure. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, whether the list is exhaustive, or pagination behavior. Minimal but adequate for a simple 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction is concise and practical. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool, this is nearly complete: it states what it lists, why it is needed (for create_tarefa), and the schema covers parameters. It lacks discussion of the response_profile or sensitive details, but those are documented in the schema, and the output schema exists.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting. The cross-reference to another tool does not apply to this tool's own parameters.

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 ('status válidos para criar tarefas'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tarefas_categorias or list_tarefas_fases. It also tells exactly why this list exists: to feed the status field in music360_create_tarefa.

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 states when to use this tool: before creating a task, to get the valid status values for the create_tarefa.status field. It does not contrast with sibling list tools, but the unique purpose makes confusion unlikely. A score of 4 reflects the lack of explicit exclusions.

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