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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description only adds the HTTP method (GET), which is consistent with annotations. No further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, returned fields, authentication requirements) are disclosed, so the description adds minimal value beyond 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 a single short sentence with minimal wording, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks essential information about parameters and return values, making it too sparse to be considered well-structured. It is front-loaded with the resource and action, but omits crucial usage details.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description should at least clarify the purpose of the parameters and the nature of the response. It provides neither, leaving the agent with incomplete context for invocation and interpretation of results.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description entirely omits any explanation of the 'query' and 'account' parameters. With no parameter semantics provided, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these optional filters.

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 ('Transportadoras' = carriers), with the HTTP endpoint confirming a list operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gestaoclick_transportadoras_get (which retrieves a single record) and create/update/delete operations.

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 implies usage via the endpoint and naming convention (list vs get), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or filtering context. It's clear this is for listing all carriers, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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