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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and side effects. The description adds only the HTTP method and endpoint, which are not behavioral disclosures. It does not mention pagination, result set size, or any side effects on the system, so it adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 that states the resource, operation, and endpoint without waste. It is concise and to the point, though it lacks a structured breakdown of parameters or usage, which affects completeness but not conciseness.

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 tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no explanation of expected inputs or return data. Without guidance on filtering, account handling, or response format, the description is inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively in most scenarios.

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) have no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain their purpose. The agent cannot infer what 'query' filters on or why 'account' is needed. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the resource (fornecedores) and operation (Listar), and mentions the HTTP method and endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from get/create/update/delete siblings by indicating it's a list operation. However, it lacks any detail on scope (e.g., all items vs. filtered) or response characteristics, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 the get/update/delete tools or other list endpoints. There is no mention of filtering via the query parameter or any prerequisites (e.g., needing an account). The description simply states the action without contextual advice.

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