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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, or return format, which would be valuable for a list operation.

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 extremely brief (one phrase), which is concise, but it lacks structure and substance. It is effectively a repetition of the tool name with the endpoint, so while there is no verbosity, the content is too thin to be considered well-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?

Given the lack of an output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a large set of sibling tools with similar names, the description is insufficient. It does not help the agent understand expected inputs, outputs, or when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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 mention the 'query' or 'account' parameters at all. With no documentation in either the schema or the description, the agent has no idea what these parameters control.

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 lists financial extra fields via GET, which is clear in verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'atributos_financeiros' actually are or how they differ from other attribute types (e.g., cadastros, orcamentos), making it only minimally distinctive beyond the tool name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other attribute list tools (e.g., gestaoclick_atributos_cadastros_list, gestaoclick_atributos_orcamentos_list). The description offers no context for selection criteria or exclusions.

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