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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'Lista' does imply a non-destructive read and 'da equipe' discloses that results are team-scoped rather than per-user. Beyond that it is silent on pagination behavior, default ordering, result size limits, and what fields come back, which matters for an 8-parameter listing 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 sentences with no filler: the resource and filter scope come first, the intended use case second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the filtering surface reasonably but omits pagination behavior and any indication of the return shape or ordering. It is adequate to select the tool but leaves gaps an agent would hit on 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 coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it maps five filter concepts onto six parameters, including making clear that vencimento_de and vencimento_ate form a single due-date interval. It leaves limit and offset entirely unexplained and gives no format or matching semantics for the enum or UUID filters.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Lista tarefas da equipe') and enumerates the filter dimensions (status, responsável, contato, oportunidade, vencimento), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with the write counterpart tarefa_create or with the other *_list siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use para saber o que está pendente ou atrasado' gives a concrete use case, which is more than a bare restatement. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over tarefa_create or the other listing tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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