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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds the behavioral detail of pagination (Paginado) and the specific fields returned. This goes beyond annotations, though it lacks details on sorting or filtering.

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 extremely concise—two short phrases in Portuguese—front-loading the purpose and key information (fields, pagination). No unnecessary words.

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 list tool with no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It mentions fields and pagination but omits input parameter explanations and does not clarify the return structure (e.g., that it returns a list of budgets). The agent lacks critical information to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain the three parameters (pagina, account, tamanho_pagina). The description only covers output fields, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema, which provides no descriptions.

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 explicitly states it lists budgets and specifies the fields returned (client, number, total, situation, version), with 'Paginado' indicating pagination. This clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (budgets), distinguishing it from sibling list tools for other entities.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and sibling context imply it is for budget listing, there is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to other list tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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