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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds important behavioral context: it returns a single compact page, uses cursor pagination, and does not scan the entire account. No contradictions with annotations.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, pagination, and scope limitation. It could hint at empty result handling but is generally complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions cursor pagination and page size implicitly via 'compact page' and 'paginate with the returned cursor', but does not explicitly explain limit and cursor parameters. Some value added, but not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a compact paginated list of clients/contacts with specific fields (id, name, classification, type, tags). This distinctively sets it apart from sibling tools like astrea_processos_list, which handle processes.

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?

Describes cursor-based pagination and explicitly notes that it does not scan the entire account, guiding efficient usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the sibling context makes it reasonably clear.

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