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

The readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations already establish the safe-read profile, and the description adds real domain behavior: a "comercial" funnel surfaces in vendas, ganho/perda and Início while "operacao" does not, and the first funnel is the default that absorbs contacts with no stage or a stale stage. That is meaningful context the annotations cannot supply, though return shape and ordering are left implicit.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then type semantics, then the default-funnel rule, then the downstream usage hint. Dense but every sentence carries information; the mixed Portuguese/English terminology adds a little friction for an agent scanning English tool names.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what the results mean (per-department funnels, type behavior, default funnel) and how the output is consumed downstream. It does not spell out the returned fields (id, name) explicitly, which is the only real omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The only parameter mention is the "funil" field of other tools, which is useful cross-tool context rather than a gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource in Portuguese ("Lista os funis da conta") and explains that there are multiple funnels, one per department (Comercial, RH, Suporte). That makes the resource concrete, though it never explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as list_pipeline_stages or create_pipeline.

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 tells the agent why to call it: the returned id or name feeds the "funil" parameter of the other tools, which is a clear use context. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use case or named alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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