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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so the description does not contradict. It adds some useful context (bulk support) but also includes actions that may not be part of this tool (list, get), potentially misleading about the tool's actual behavior. No significant new behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.

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 overly long for a simple read tool, includes a bullet-list of actions that mix tool scope, and ends with a cryptic note ('[Flattened action: insurance]'). It lacks a clean, front-loaded structure. Several sentences are redundant or confusing.

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 no output schema and moderate annotation coverage, the description should clarify what each action returns and how to use bulk parameters. It fails to describe return values or example usage, and the action list suggests more capabilities than the tool likely has. The agent would need to infer much from context.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry full parameter explanation. It mentions some parameters (ativo, unidade_id, especialidade_id, profissional_id, bulk arrays) but omits others like 'account'. Additionally, conditions like 'requires ativo (0=inactive, 1=active)' are tied to a specific action, not the tool overall. Incomplete and inconsistently described.

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 it reads professionals but also lists three actions (list, get, insurance) and the tool name suggests it's about insurance. This is confusing, especially since sibling tools exist for professional list/get. The purpose is vague and does not clearly differentiate from siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description lists actions but does not clarify when to use this tool versus sibling tools like feegow_professional_list, feegow_professional_get, or feegow_insurance. The agent is left guessing which action to invoke.

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