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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral facts: there is no filter or pagination and it always returns all active accounts. This is consistent with 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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose and return fields, downstream usage, and constraints are each given a sentence. The most important scoping information appears first.

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 simple read-only list, the description covers the returned fields and calling constraints well. However, the presence of an optional 'account' parameter that the description says is not a filter creates a completeness gap; an agent cannot be fully sure how to handle it.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'account' is undocumented. The description's 'Não tem filtro nem paginação' implies the parameter does not act as a filter, but it never states whether the parameter is ignored, deprecated or used for something else.

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 names a specific operation ('Lista') on a specific resource ('contas bancárias ativas da agência no iClips') and enumerates returned fields. It is clear and precise, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding sibling iclips_list_accounts.

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 gives clear downstream guidance ('Use o id retornado como account_id ao filtrar iclips_financial_entries') and states the tool's no-filter/no-pagination behavior. It does not mention when to prefer this over iclips_list_accounts, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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