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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the endpoint but no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filters, return structure). It merely restates the operation without providing new insights 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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase. It is front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, and every word adds utility. While minimal, it avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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 tool with two unexplained parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not describe the response format, possible query filters, or any caveats. Simple list tools typically need at least some context on what the list contains or how filtering works; this description lacks that.

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 has two parameters (query, account) with 0% schema coverage, and the description does not mention them at all. This violates the expectation that the description compensates for low schema coverage. There is no explanation of what 'query' or 'account' mean, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 budget situations ('Situações de orçamentos: Listar') and gives the endpoint, which is specific enough. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by naming the resource (orçamentos vs compras, vendas, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly elaborate beyond the name, missing a chance to clarify what 'situações' represent.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies usage for retrieving budget situation records, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over other list tools or any prerequisites like authentication. The context is only implied by the name and endpoint.

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