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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which is extra context, but it doesn't describe pagination, return format, or any restrictions.

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 concise, a single phrase, which is good for brevity. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load any actionable details beyond the resource name.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, any defaults, or the significance of the parameters, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'account' parameters at all. It offers no hints about their purpose or expected values, leaving the agent entirely uninformed.

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 action ('Listar') and the resource ('contas bancárias'), and even provides the API endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools.

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 alternatives. There's no mention of filtering, prerequisites, or context for choosing this over similar list tools like gestaoclick_clientes_list.

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