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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'leitura' (redundant) and bulk behavior 'accepts ids for batched execution', which is useful. It does not explain pagination behavior, return format, or how cursor and ids interact, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 short and uses line breaks, but it includes an extraneous action list (get/assets/transactions) for a tool that is flattened to list. The 'Ações' list is misleading, and not every sentence earns its place; the first sentence is a fragment.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the list returns, how cursor pagination works, or what the account parameter does. Bulk support is a plus, but there are significant gaps for a tool with four undocumented parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps cursor to list and ids to batched execution, but leaves id and account completely unexplained. The mention of get/assets/transactions with id only adds confusion for this particular tool.

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 states 'Afiliações no Guru (leitura)' indicating a read operation for affiliations, and '[Flattened action: list]' clarifies that this specific tool handles the list action. The verb 'list' and resource 'affiliations' are clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like guru_affiliations_get, relying on the tool name and flattening note.

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?

Provides some guidance: 'list (cursor)' suggests listing with cursor, and 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution' gives a concrete use case for the ids parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over guru_affiliations_get or guru_affiliations_assets, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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