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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by specifying the install-scoped nature of the listing and the returned fields. It does not mention pagination or authentication, but the safety profile is already covered by 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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs in scope and returned fields. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and returned fields well. However, it completely omits the semantics of the optional 'account' parameter and says nothing about defaults or pagination, leaving a meaningful gap for non-default calls.

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 has one optional 'account' parameter with no description, and the tool description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no way to know whether 'account' filters the list, selects a context, or has specific format requirements.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista'), a distinct resource ('contas Cakto/apps do painel'), an explicit scope ('vinculadas a este install'), and the fields returned (id, label e apelido). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like cakto_customers_list or cakto_offers_list.

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 phrase 'vinculadas a este install' gives useful context for when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. For a simple list operation, the usage is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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