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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral boundary: it only returns public directory data and excludes cadastral records and personal contacts, which annotations do not convey.

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 short, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a single clarifying exclusion.

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 description clarifies the data scope but does not mention response shape, pagination behavior, or how the six parameters affect results. With no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unspecified for confident 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 only 17% (only q has a description), and the tool description adds no information about page, sort, limit, order, or state. An agent cannot learn filter, sorting, or pagination semantics from the description, and the schema itself is largely silent.

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 action ('Lista') and the resource ('construtoras e incorporadoras'), and scopes it to the ObraAberta public directory. The explicit exclusion of internal registration data and personal contacts helps distinguish it from related tools like get_builder.

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 implies this is for listing public directory entries and not for retrieving internal or personal data, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like get_builder or search_projects. There is no alternative routing or exclusion statement naming another tool.

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