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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds value by mentioning bulk support via grupo_ids, but it does not explain behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or response format. This adds some context beyond annotations, earning a 3.

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 very concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a separate sentence for bulk support. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. It does not waste words, but it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter hints, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 tool with 5 parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on pagination, filtering via query, page_size semantics, and what the response contains. The annotations cover safety but not operational details, so the description falls short.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It only mentions grupo_ids for batched execution, leaving page, query, page_size, and grupo_id unexplained. The addition for grupo_ids is helpful but insufficient for the full parameter set.

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 'Lista agenda de um grupo' clearly states the action (list), resource (agenda), and scope (group). It is specific and differentiates from siblings by the 'grupo' scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The name itself reinforces the distinction, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like easyjur_list_agenda or other group-scoped tools. It only mentions bulk support, which is a parameter feature, not usage context. There is no statement of prerequisites or scenarios, so it scores low.

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