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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by detailing the exact JSON filter format with supported operators (eq, ne, gt, gte, lt, lte, in, nin, contains, exists), which goes beyond the bare schema. It does not contradict any 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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('lists records of an object') followed by the essential filter details. Every word is necessary, and it avoids any fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or pagination specifics (e.g., how offset/limit work, default values). It also does not clarify the account parameter or sort syntax. While the core purpose and filter format are covered, the overall context is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters, especially since some are not described. The description would benefit from mentioning the response shape or pagination defaults.

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. It explains the filter parameter in detail, including syntax and operators, which is the most complex parameter. However, it does not describe the sort format (e.g., field, direction), pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults), or the account parameter. Despite this, the detailed filter guidance provides meaningful semantic value.

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 'Lista registros de um objeto' (lists records of an object), which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly indicates a read operation with filtering, sorting, and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_create_records or crm_delete_records, and even from crm_get_records which likely returns individual records.

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 clearly implies the tool is used for listing records of an object, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like crm_search or crm_get_records. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the context is clear but no differentiators are given.

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