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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP GET method and endpoint path, reinforcing non-mutating behavior, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, or account scoping.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely sparse and could include useful parameter or behavior details without becoming verbose.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description omits key functional details such as how 'query' and 'account' filter results, whether the response is paginated, and what fields are returned. Annotations cover safety but not operational completeness.

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% and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'account' parameters. The agent cannot determine their meaning or usage from the description, only from the parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb 'Buscar' (search/list) and a clear resource 'motivos de perda' (loss reasons), reinforced by the GET endpoint indicating a collection read. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling get/update/delete tools, though it does not explicitly state the scope or filtering semantics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like datacrazy_business_loss_reasons_get for a single item or create/update for modifications. It only states the operation without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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