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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful constraint (max 50 results), but says nothing about ordering, permissions, pagination, or what happens when the data set exceeds the cap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves several questions unanswered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage guidance, the definition is under-specified for a tool that competes with search_companies and get_company_details.

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 0% and the single parameter 'limit' has no description or default documented in the schema. The description only hints at a hard cap of 50, without tying it to the limit parameter or clarifying its default of 10.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('empresas armazenadas no Scrypta') with a scope qualifier ('últimas') and a cap. It distinguishes itself from search_companies by implying a recency-based default listing, though it never names the alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_companies or get_company_details. 'Últimas' hints at a recent-companies listing, but the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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