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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the meaning of tipos values and a cross-tool reference, enriching behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists filter values and a practical tip. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only list operation, the description clarifies the primary purpose and the key filter, but omits details about pagination parameters (pagina, tamanho_pagina) and the account filter. Given the absence of an output schema, it is complete for the main use case but not fully self-contained.

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 describes 6 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description explains only the 'tipos' parameter with its allowed enum values, while leaving nome, pagina, account, apenas_ativo, and tamanho_pagina undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists financial accounts (bank, cash, card) with the verb 'Lista' and a specific resource. It provides a list of possible 'tipos' values, distinguishing its scope from other list tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling contaazul_list_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?

It explains filtering by 'tipos' and gives an explicit use case to find the account used by contaazul_generate_charge, guiding when to apply a specific filter. It does not mention alternatives for listing regular accounts, but the provided context is clear enough for typical usage.

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