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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the endpoint in the form, with no additional behavioral context such as filtering behavior, pagination, or data returned. This is consistent with annotations and does not contradict them.

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: 'Estados: Listar (GET /api/estados).' It uses a front-loaded resource-and-verb structure and contains no fluff or redundant content.

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 no output schema and completely undocumented parameters, the description is not complete. It identifies the endpoint, but it does not explain what 'query' and 'account' do, what state data is listed, or what shape the response takes. Despite the low conceptual complexity, key usage details are missing.

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 two properties, 'query' and 'account', and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description says nothing at all about what these parameters mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the response. The tool must rely entirely on the parameter names, which are ambiguous.

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 tool as listing 'Estados' (states) and explicitly provides the HTTP endpoint 'GET /api/estados'. The verb 'Listar/List' plus the resource uniquely distinguishes it from the large sibling set of 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?

The description implies this is a read-only listing operation, which is reinforced by the annotations, but it does not provide explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any conditions/ exclusions. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, despite many similar list endpoints existing among siblings.

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