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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as including both granted and received powers of attorney and providing validity status. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or permission requirements. The annotation already establishes it as a safe read operation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the purpose, scope, and a key feature, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It could clarify how the optional 'empresaId' filters results or what the validity statuses mean, but these are not critical for basic interpretation.

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% for the single parameter 'empresaId' (described as 'ID da empresa'), so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning. The description itself mentions no parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) with a specific resource 'procurações eletrônicas do e-CAC' and indicates scope ('outorgadas e recebidas') and a distinguishing feature ('com status de validade'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'caixa_postal_ecac' or 'listar_obrigacoes_acessorias'.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when needing to list e-CAC powers of attorney) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. There are no exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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