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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety traits. The description adds that the tool is 'filtrável/buscável' and supports 'bulk execution' via catalog_ids, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the schema. However, it omits details about paging, response format, or other side effects, resulting in partial transparency.

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 brief, but it uses non-standard notation like '|', '[Flattened action: list]', which is cryptic and lacks clear structure. Every sentence is short, but the formatting is opaque, and the meaning could be misparsed by an agent. It is concise but not well-structured or readable.

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 only 7 parameters and no output schema, the description must explain the tool's behavior and parameter usage. It does not explain page/limit/query/filter/account/cataliada_id, and it muddles the catalog-versus-elements scope. The tool's overall behavior is unclear and could lead to incorrect invocation, so completeness is low.

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 for parameter semantics. The only parameter explanation is that catalog_ids enables bulk execution. The other six parameters (page, limit, query, filter, account, catalog_id) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without understanding their roles. The description adds marginal value but is largely inadequate for the schema.

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 'action: list (todos os catálogos)' which clearly identifies it as a list tool for catalogs. However, it also mentions 'elements (itens de um catálogo)', which blends a separate capability better suited to kommo_catalogs_elements, introducing ambiguity. The primary verb and resource are present, but the dual-action phrasing prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_catalogs_elements. It mentions 'elements' but does not direct users to the dedicated sibling tool nor define exclusions. The lack of contextual or alternative references leaves the agent to guess from the name alone, earning a low score.

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