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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context on data type and date formats, but the multi-action claim contradicts the likely single-action tool, reducing transparency.

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 relatively concise but includes extraneous action details and a flattened action note. Could be more structured.

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?

Lacks return value description, and parameter mapping is inconsistent with schema. Incomplete for an effective tool usage.

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 has only 'data' and 'account' with no description, 0% coverage. Description mentions parameters like paciente_id, data_inicio, etc., but these do not match the schema, causing confusion.

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 proposals, but includes multiple actions (list, list_by_date, get_url) that are actually separate sibling tools, creating confusion. The flattened action note suggests it only does 'list', but the description misleads.

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?

Only explicitly says not to use for create/change status (directs to feegow_proposal_write). No differentiation from similar read tools feegow_proposal_list_by_date and feegow_proposal_get_url, which are implied as actions.

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