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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose pagination, response format, or any side effects, but given the annotations, the description meets the baseline.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no usage guidance. The description is too sparse to fully support an agent in selecting and invoking the tool correctly, especially given the large number of similar sibling list tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'account' parameters. The agent has no idea what values to provide or whether they are optional. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare property names, which is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists extra fields for registrations (Campos extras de cadastros) and maps to GET /api/atributos_cadastros. It is clear about the resource and action, but it does not distinguish from sibling list tools like gestaoclick_atributos_financeiros_list or gestaoclick_atributos_produtos_list, which are similarly named and likely similar in purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for 'cadastros' specifically, nor does it explain the query and account parameters or any filtering capabilities. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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