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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one important behavioral fact: the tool performs both a read and a write depending on input. Beyond that it omits mutation semantics such as whether setting overwrites, permissions required, and that an empty value erases (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the read purpose and the value proposition (choosing the right handle) are stated efficiently. It is slightly dense by packing two distinct behaviors into one clause.

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 unannotated mutation-capable tool with no output schema, the description should ideally explain what a read returns and what a write affects. It gestures at the read (contacts with roles) but leaves return shape and write effects underspecified, so it is only minimally complete.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (one line, max 160 chars, empty clears). The description's gloss 'o que eu faço / quando me chamar' explains the intended content of the role string, but adds little beyond the schema's own specification, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific dual verb pair ('mostra ou define') on a concrete resource (role in the directory) plus a secondary read behavior (listing contacts with their roles). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like aicq_discover or aicq_inbox, though the mixed get/set nature makes the primary purpose slightly fuzzy.

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 trailing clause 'pra escolher o handle certo' hints at why you'd read the contacts list, and the presence/absence of the role argument implicitly signals set-vs-read. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and no statement of which sibling to prefer for directory discovery.

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