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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Risco: read · Efeitos: Nenhum' merely restates that. It adds nothing about volume, pagination, ordering, or whether items are filtered by property or status, which are the real behavioral unknowns for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 lines with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the metadata tag. Nothing is redundant except the risk/effects line, which duplicates the annotations rather than adding 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?

With zero parameters the invocation itself is trivial and needs no documentation, but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back. It mentions situação and habitação but says nothing about record count, pagination, or whether results span all properties, leaving the return shape underspecified.

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 no parameters, so there is no schema semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 names a specific resource (itens perdidos/encontrados registrados) and notes the data carries situação and habitação, so the agent can infer this is a list of lost-and-found records. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and no scope statement (all items? all properties?), so it is vague about what the tool actually does. No sibling covers lost-and-found, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, which keeps it from being worse than a 3.

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 only framing is 'Escopo: operations:read · Risco: read · Efeitos: Nenhum', which is permission/risk metadata rather than guidance on when to call this tool. There is no statement of when to use it, when not to, or what alternative exists for related queries.

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