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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the domain framing (scope/onboarding tracking per client) and filter dimensions; it says nothing about pagination behaviour or what happens when no filter is supplied, which the annotations do not cover.

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 resource definition is front-loaded ahead of the filtering detail. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is terse enough that it edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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-required-param list tool with a fully documented schema and read-safe annotations, this is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema the description should ideally indicate what a process record contains or how pagination/default ordering works, and it does not.

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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, status enum, contact_id) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the status and contact filters but adds no syntax, semantics or defaults beyond that, and never mentions the limit parameter. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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+resource ("Lista processos") and a parenthetical that disambiguates what a 'processo' is here ("acompanhamento de escopo/onboarding por cliente"), which distinguishes it from list_process_templates and get_process. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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 the two filtering dimensions ("Filtra por status e/ou contato"), which implies the calling conditions, but gives no guidance on when to prefer list_process_templates, get_process, or list_contacts instead, and no prerequisites or result-scoping advice. Usage is inferable rather than specified.

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