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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what the result contains (lines covered per insurer) but does not describe return format or pagination. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, 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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and includes a practical usage pointer at the end. Slightly dense with the inline parenthetical list of branches, but every part earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers what is returned (insurers and the branches each quotes). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently communicates the result content. It is complete enough for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect.

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 has 0 parameters, so baseline 4 applies — there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema is empty and fully covered, so no parameter documentation gap exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource (seguradoras habilitadas na conta Agger), and specifies exactly what is returned: the insurers and the branches each one quotes (auto, residencial, empresarial, etc.). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like agger_cep or agger_negocios, which address entirely separate concerns.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use para saber em quais seguradoras dá para cotar cada ramo antes de montar uma cotação.' This tells the agent the tool is a pre-quote lookup step. It doesn't name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling is a plausible substitute, so this is clear and sufficient.

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