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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the scope (reconciliation accounts) and the return fields (name, type, bank, tolerance settings), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 listing tool, the description covers scope and return fields well. However, it omits the effect of the optional 'empresaId' parameter and does not mention pagination, which are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the 'empresaId' parameter description, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on how 'empresaId' affects results; in fact, saying 'todas as contas' creates ambiguity about whether the parameter filters or is ignored.

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 clearly states the tool lists all accounts configured for accounting reconciliation, specifying categories (banking, customers, suppliers, taxes) and the output fields. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like 'listar_contas_bancarias' by focusing on reconciliation-specific accounts.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to list reconciliation accounts. The description implicitly restricts to reconciliation-configured accounts, which distinguishes it from general bank account listing, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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