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 description does not need to repeat that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, such as pagination, maximum result count, or whether the 'query' parameter supports advanced filtering. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, a single sentence, and front-loads the resource and action. It also includes the HTTP endpoint for reference. There is no wasted text, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool complexity is moderate (a listing operation with two parameters), the description is minimal. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the return structure, or any filtering behavior. Since there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely use the tool, especially with the 'query' parameter being undefined.

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 coverage is 0% and there are only 2 parameters ('query' and 'account') with no descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain the meaning or format of these parameters. Since the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics and fails to do so, it scores low. The only hint is 'account' likely refers to an account identifier, but 'query' is 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 'Ordens de serviços: Listar (GET /api/ordens_servicos)' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (ordens de serviços), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, delete, or get single records. It also provides the HTTP endpoint, adding specificity. However, it lacks details about the scope (e.g., all ordens or filtered by account) that would further differentiate it from 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it lists all ordens de serviços, whether it supports filtering, or if it is the primary listing tool. No explicit context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and endpoint only.

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