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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Consulta' aligns with these. The description adds some context about the gateway endpoint and auxiliary-list scope, but it does not go beyond annotations to disclose return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits, so the added transparency value is modest.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences: the first defines purpose and scope, the second gives required inputs. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of annotations or unrelated details.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for reliable invocation: there is no output schema, no elaboration of the 'params' string format, no explanation of the optional 'account' parameter, and no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the many specialized siblings. The description and schema also disagree on whether 'params' is required, creating ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only says 'Informe o guid e os params', which names two parameters and implies they are needed, but it does not explain what these values represent, what format 'params' should take, or what the 'account' parameter means. This is minimal compensation for a schema that provides no descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Consulta genérica ao gateway do CIGAM (ObterCarga)') and the resource type ('listas auxiliares'), with concrete examples like 'planos de conta, formas de pagamento, marcas'. It differentiates itself from specialized siblings by being explicitly generic while still scoping its target.

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 useful context: this is for generic auxiliary lists and the user should inform 'guid' and 'params'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the many specialized sibling tools, and one of its examples ('formas de pagamento') overlaps with an existing sibling name, so usage boundaries are only implied, not clarified.

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