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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by specifying that the list is scoped to 'this install' and by revealing the returned shape (id, label), which helps the agent understand exactly what to expect.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that includes the action, the resource, the installation scope, and the expected return fields. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, read-only listing tool with supportive annotations, the description covers the main purpose and output fields. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the optional account parameter, the description has a notable gap that prevents it from being fully complete.

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 only defines 'account' as a string with no description, and the description does not clarify what this parameter accepts or how it affects the result. With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter semantics, and it fails to explain the optional parameter.

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 tool lists GestãoClick connections/accounts linked to the installation and specifies the returned fields (id, label). 'Lista' is a specific verb, and the resource 'conexões (contas) GestãoClick vinculadas a este install' distinguishes it from the many 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?

The context is clear: an agent would use this when it needs to see which GestãoClick accounts are connected. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, and it does not explain whether the optional account parameter is meant to filter the list or serve some other purpose.

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