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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align with the 'Read' in the description. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not explain what the 'data' and 'account' parameters do, nor the behavior of the different actions (e.g., whether they are all read-only). The mention of multiple actions is misleading given the schema.

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 not concise. It lists multiple actions, but the tool seems to only support one action ('Flattened action: list'). The inclusion of other actions is redundant and likely confusing. Important information about parameters and usage is missing. The structure could be streamlined to focus on the actual functionality.

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 the complexity (multiple actions implied) and the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially regarding which action to use and how to pass filters. The presence of sibling tools adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

Input schema has two parameters (data, account) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain these parameters or how they relate to the listed actions. For example, it mentions filters like 'tipo_procedimento' but these are not shown as parameters. The description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter usage.

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' which gives a general purpose. However, it then lists multiple actions (list, types, insurance_list, franchise, bundles, groups) that are not reflected in the input schema, and there are separate sibling tools for some of these actions. The 'Flattened action: list' note suggests only the list action is available, but this is not clear from the description. The purpose is vaguely clear but confusing due to the mismatch.

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 versus siblings such as feegow_procedure_types or feegow_procedure_bundles. The description lists actions but does not indicate that alternative siblings exist for those actions, nor does it provide criteria for choosing this tool over them.

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