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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral information beyond that, such as pagination behavior, result limits, or the purpose of the 'query' nested object. It is a bare statement with zero extra context.

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 short (three words), but this is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no structure, no front-loaded key information, and it fails to convey essential details like pagination or query capabilities. It is not helpfully compact; it is just sparse.

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 list endpoint with three parameters (including a nested query object) and no output schema, the description provides zero explanatory context. It does not mention how pagination works, what the query object expects, or what the response contains. This is severely inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 3 parameters (page, query, page_size) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description says nothing about any of them. The 'query' object is nested and entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to construct or use the parameters.

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 despesas' states the resource (expenses) and the action (list), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like easyjur_list_despesas_grupo or easyjur_get_despesa, and fails to mention any scoping or filtering behavior beyond the bare listing.

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 such as easyjur_list_despesas_grupo or easyjur_get_despesa. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or circumstances that would favor this tool, leaving the agent without decision support.

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