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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the fixed count of 19 groups and the ordinance reference, which is useful context but does not disclose additional traits such as default return behavior or performance. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, focused sentences with no filler. The verb 'Lista' is front-loaded, and the description efficiently conveys the core action and output without redundancy.

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 list tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It could add a note that this is a reference list and not an indicator tool, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can call it correctly.

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 both parameters (group_code, include_cid_codes) are clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 it lists the 19 CSAP groups per Portaria MS/SAS 221/2008, with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('grupos CSAP'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_cid_chapters by naming the exact resource type and the legal basis.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_icsap, rank_csap_groups, or list_cid_chapters. The description only states what it does, leaving the decision entirely to the agent's inference.

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