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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the scope ('neste install') and the returned fields, but it does not disclose details like pagination, authentication, or what happens when no CNPJs are connected.

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 entire description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence. It immediately states the action and the resource, then adds the returned fields without any wasted words or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers the core purpose and output fields, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the unexplained 'account' parameter and lack of any output structure or edge-case behavior leave a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 parameter, 'account', with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, leaving the agent without any indication of how 'account' affects the listing behavior.

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 clear verb ('Lista') and resource ('CNPJs conectados neste install'), and even enumerates the returned fields: razão social, CNPJ e UF. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dfe_consultar_chave or dfe_gerar_danfe, which target different operations.

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 makes clear that the tool lists CNPJs connected to the current install, which implies when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools such as dfe_consultar_nsu or dfe_sincronizar.

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