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 known. The description only repeats the GET method and endpoint, adding no behavioral context such as pagination, filtering, authentication, or response structure.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the essential verb and resource, followed by the endpoint, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of 'query' or 'account', nor does it describe pagination, response format, or any other behavior needed 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?

Both parameters 'query' and 'account' are completely undocumented in the schema and the description. With 0% schema description coverage and no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they affect the listing, the agent cannot make informed parameter choices.

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 states the verb 'Listar' and the resource 'Cidades', and the explicit endpoint 'GET /api/cidades' reinforces the purpose. It is more informative than the tool name alone, but it provides no additional detail about the city entity or the meaning of the list result.

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 the many sibling list tools, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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