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 covered. The description adds the GET endpoint and resource context but does not disclose additional behaviors such as authentication requirements, pagination, or response format.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the resource and operation, then appends the endpoint. Every part contributes meaning and there is no waste.

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?

For a list operation with two unexplained optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, filtering or pagination details, and expected return structure, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema defines two optional string parameters ('query' and 'account') with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. An agent has no way to know what values are accepted, what 'query' filters, or how 'account' should be specified.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('Campos extras de orçamentos' – extra fields of budgets) and the operation ('Listar' – list), and includes the specific endpoint GET /api/atributos_orcamentos. The resource name distinguishes it from sibling list tools for other domains such as atributos_cadastros_list and orcamentos_list.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get, create, update, or even the regular orcamentos_list endpoint. The only usage signal is the verb 'Listar', but no context or exclusions are provided.

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