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

The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and correctly implies a read-only GET operation. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior, response shape, or whether query/account affect the returned list.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. It efficiently states the resource and the HTTP verb, though it is concise to the point of being under-specified in other areas.

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 description is enough to recognize the tool as a list operation for extra fields of service orders, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema or parameter semantics, the description is only minimally complete for guiding correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 input schema has 2 parameters but 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of 'query' or 'account' or how they affect the listing. With no parameter-level documentation in the schema, the description fails to compensate for that gap.

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 action ('Listar') and the resource ('Campos extras ordens serviço' via GET /api/atributos_ordens_servicos), which distinguishes it from get/create/update/delete siblings for the same entity. It is clear and minimally differentiated, though it does not explicitly state what 'campos extras' represent.

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 list tool versus the sibling list tools or the get/create/update/delete variants. The 'Listar' label implies a listing action, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool suggestions are provided.

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