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 safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the endpoint—no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or return payload structure. With zero added transparency, the description fails to enrich the agent's understanding of runtime behavior.

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, compact phrase that front-loads the resource and action ('Planos de contas: Listar') and includes the HTTP method and path. There is zero fluff or redundancy. While extremely brief, the structure is efficient and immediately scannable.

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 has two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It fails to explain what 'query' and 'account' do, lacks pagination or filtering details, and provides no indication of the response shape. The bare endpoint is insufficient for an agent to reliably call the tool with correct arguments.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters ('query' and 'account'), and the description also omits any explanation of their meaning or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for documenting parameters, and it completely fails to do so, leaving the agent guessing on how to use them effectively.

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' = list) and the resource ('Planos de contas'), with the explicit API endpoint (GET /api/planos_contas). It unambiguously communicates what the tool does and is easily distinguished from sibling list tools by its unique resource name.

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. While the name makes it obvious which resource it lists, the description lacks any context on prerequisites, filtering scenarios, or exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or when other list tools (e.g., centros_custos_list) would be more appropriate.

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