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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the side-effect profile. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and resource, but does not go into potential errors, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. Since the annotations cover the core behavioral aspects, the description adds only marginal transparency.

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, concise sentence that directly states the operation and endpoint. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and contains no redundant information. The structure is clear and 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?

The description lacks essential context about the output. It does not indicate whether the list returns objects with specific fields, whether pagination is supported, or any other relevant details. Since no output schema is provided, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the expected return value ambiguous.

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 defines two parameters ('query' and 'account') but provides no descriptions. The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving their purpose completely undefined. With zero schema coverage and no description compensation, an agent cannot infer what values are expected or how they filter the results.

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) and resource (Situações de OS – service order statuses), and includes the endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gestaoclick_situacoes_compras_list by referencing 'OS', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it is terse and could benefit from a brief explanation of the returned data.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and resource make it somewhat self-evident, there is no guidance on scenarios (e.g., 'use this when you need the list of possible statuses for service orders') or on how the parameters affect the call. It lacks explicit usage instructions.

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