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

Annotations clearly indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description does not add extra context but does not contradict the annotations, so transparency is adequate.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and gets straight to the point.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description lacks important context such as what 'envolvidos' specifically refers to (e.g., people, roles), expected output format, or any usage caveats. The minimal information may leave an agent unsure about the return value or edge cases.

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 parameters 'agenda_id' and 'agenda_ids' are self-explanatory from their names, but 'query' is ambiguous and no descriptions are provided. The description does not clarify the meaning or usage of any parameter, leaving room for confusion.

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 that the tool retrieves involved parties for an agenda item, distinguishing it from sibling tools like comments or stages. The verb 'Envolvidos' implies a retrieval action, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is the bulk support for multiple agenda_ids, but it does not clarify scenarios or prerequisites for using this tool over others.

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