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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the useful behavioral fact that the returned funil_id/etapa_id feed into opportunity creation, which implies a read-only lookup. However it says nothing about permissions, result volume, pagination, or what happens when no funil matches.

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 zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage instruction. The parenthetical glosses on 'pipelines' and 'opcionalmente' add clarity rather than bulk.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (funnels and their stages) and how to use it downstream. It leaves the search parameter and the shape of a funil/stage record undefined, which matters more given the absent output schema.

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?

There is one parameter, 'busca', at 0% schema coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from the text whether it filters by funnel name, stage name, or ID, nor whether it is a substring or exact match.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Lista funis (pipelines) e suas etapas', and the parenthetical translation removes ambiguity about what a 'funil' is. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list tools (contato_list, tarefa_list, etc.) by resource, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 states a concrete usage trigger: call this BEFORE creating an opportunity, in order to pick funil_id and optionally etapa_id. That is a real workflow cue rather than vague guidance. It stops short of a full 5 because it names no exclusions or alternative lookup paths.

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