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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description aligns perfectly by describing a read-only listing operation with no side effects. It adds useful context about the return values (id, nome) beyond what annotations provide, enhancing transparency. No 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context and return information. Every sentence is essential, and the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, why to use it (as a prerequisite), and what it returns (id + nome). It could mention that it returns all models without filtering, but that is implicit given the lack of parameters. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple listing tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly omits it. There is no loss of meaning since there are no parameters to describe.

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 verb 'Lista' (lists) and resource 'MODELOS de documento', provides examples (procuração, contrato, petição), and explains its purpose as a prerequisite for astrea_documento_gerar. It also specifies the return fields (id + nome), making the tool's purpose highly specific and distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before astrea_documento_gerar, giving a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with other sibling tools beyond that one reference. The guidance is helpful but could be more comprehensive.

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