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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them either. The bar is lower due to good annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter's role and the behavior of 'next available number' (e.g., global vs per account, sequential vs skipping). The current description leaves these gaps, making it incomplete for full understanding.

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 one parameter 'account' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'account' means, whether it is required or optional, or how it affects the result. This is a critical gap that severely hampers correct usage.

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 'Retorna o próximo número de contrato disponível' clearly states the verb (returns) and resource (next available contract number), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'contaazul_list_contracts' which might also return contract numbers, so it loses some points for lack of sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before creating a contract, after listing contracts). There is no mention of context or prerequisites, leaving an agent to infer usage on its own.

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