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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a read-only operation. The description adds that values are in centavos and lists the available actions, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not explain the 'flattened action: bundles' concept or any side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 long and includes a bullet list of actions, each with different filter parameters. It is not concise, and the ending '[Flattened action: bundles]' adds confusion. The structure could be improved by focusing on the bundle action and noting that other actions are available via sibling tools.

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?

Given that the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should compensate by clearly explaining how to invoke the desired action and what each parameter does. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema has two parameters (data, account) with 0% schema description coverage. The description lists many filter fields for the list action (e.g., tipo_procedimento, procedimento_id) but does not map them to the schema parameters. It is unclear how these filters are specified (likely via the 'data' parameter as a JSON string), but the description fails to explain this.

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 'Read procedures in Feegow.' but then lists multiple actions (list, types, insurance_list, franchise, bundles, groups) with no clear primary purpose. The tool name 'feegow_procedure_bundles' suggests it is about bundles, yet the description includes actions that correspond to sibling tools (e.g., feegow_procedure_types, feegow_procedure_list), causing confusion and lack of focus.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many sibling tools that cover specific actions (like feegow_procedure_list, feegow_procedure_types). The description does not mention that the other tools should be used for individual actions, nor does it provide context for selecting the appropriate action within this tool.

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