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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the scope ('ligadas a este install') and the returned fields, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as authentication needs, pagination, or filtering effects beyond what the annotations imply.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the output fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or padding.

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 listing tool, the description covers the resource, scope, and returned fields, and the annotations cover safety. However, it is incomplete for fully correct invocation because it does not explain the optional 'account' parameter, and with no output schema the agent only gets a partial view of the expected response.

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 mention the optional 'account' parameter at all. The agent is left with no explanation of what 'account' means, whether it filters the list, or how it should be formatted. This is a significant gap because the description was the only opportunity to clarify the parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource: the iClips agencies/API keys linked to the current install. It also names the output fields (id, apelido, nome), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like iclips_financial_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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools such as iclips_financial_accounts, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name and scope.

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