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

The description mentions a check_in action (writing check-in status) while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, a direct contradiction. This creates confusion about the tool's side effects.

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 but poorly structured: it lists multiple actions and a technical '(Flattened action: list)' note, which adds noise without aiding comprehension. It is not succinctly focused on the list operation.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a cryptic Portuguese description, the tool is far from self-contained. An agent cannot determine expected inputs, return format, or pagination behavior.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters (code, cursor, account). It only hints 'cursor' for list but lacks details on usage, format, or 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 lists multiple actions (list, get, check_in) making the primary purpose ambiguous. Although the name and flattened action indicate 'list', the inclusion of get and check_in conflates the tool's scope. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like guru_etickets_get.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely enumerates actions without explaining contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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