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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering core safety. The description adds that it lists proposals, but no extra details on behavior (e.g., pagination, error handling, or what happens with empty results). It does not contradict 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 verbose, including details of multiple actions (list, get_url) that are not part of this tool. The '[Flattened action: list_by_date]' hint attempts to clarify, but the extra information makes it harder to parse. Every sentence should focus on this specific tool.

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 minimal parameter documentation, the description fails to fully explain how to use the tool. The two parameters ('data' and 'account') are not described in the schema or adequately in the text. The tool is simple, but the description does not enable correct invocation without guessing.

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 compensate. It mentions parameters like 'data_proposta, data_alteracao YYYY-MM-DD, PacienteID' but the actual schema only has 'data' and 'account' strings with no format. This mismatch leaves the agent guessing the mapping between the described fields and the schema 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 states the tool reads proposals (treatment plans with pricing) and the name indicates listing by date. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_proposal_list and feegow_proposal_write. However, the description also includes other actions (list, get_url), causing some ambiguity about this specific tool's 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?

The description explicitly mentions alternatives: 'For creating / changing status use feegow_proposal_write.' It also implies this tool is for reading, not writing. However, it does not clearly differentiate from feegow_proposal_list or when to prefer this date-based variant.

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