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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is somewhat contradicted by the description mentioning create/update actions, but the tool name is 'list' suggesting read-only. The description mentions 'paginada com filtros' (paginated with filters) and bulk support, which gives some insight, but it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or what is destroyed/changed. The multi-action nature creates uncertainty about the default behavior when no action is specified.

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 includes extraneous text like 'Tasks do Kommo' and a redundant mention of actions that are not the main focus. The structure is somewhat disorganized with a note about flattened action and bulk support. However, it is not overly verbose; it just lacks precision. Some sentences are useful, but the mix of languages and unrelated actions detract from clarity.

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?

Despite the tool having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain how to use the list action, what filters are available, how pagination works, or what the response contains. The mention of bulk support is helpful but incomplete. Given the complexity, the description is severely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool reliably.

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?

The schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides almost no parameter documentation. It mentions 'data' is body for create/update, and 'id' and 'ids' for bulk, but the key parameters for list (page, limit, filter, query, order, with, account) are left entirely unexplained. There is no added meaning for these parameters beyond their names, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 starts with 'Tasks do Kommo. action: list' which is unclear language mixing Portuguese and English, and the main action 'list' is not clearly defined as 'lists tasks' — it just says the action is 'list'. The description does not explicitly state that this tool lists tasks, and the verb is implicit. It lists multiple actions (list/get/create/update) even though the tool is named 'kommo_tasks_list', causing confusion about its primary purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this specific tool vs. sibling tools like kommo_tasks_get or kommo_tasks_create. The description mentions 'Flattened action: list' and 'Bulk support' but does not explain scenarios where this tool is preferred. It lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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