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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the OData endpoint context and mentions common OData query options, but doesn't disclose default pagination behavior, result limits, or authentication expectations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the relevant OData options. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases or filler.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, a nested query object, no output schema, and many similarly named siblings, but the description gives only a minimal summary. It doesn't explain the query object, clarify differences from get_appointments, or describe pagination/return behavior, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameters. It lists five of eight parameters ($filter, $top, $skip, $orderby, $expand) with standard OData meaning, but omits $select, $count, and the query object, leaving those parameters unexplained.

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 uses the clear verb 'Lista' with the resource 'Compromissos/agenda' and identifies the OData endpoint /Appointments, making the operation unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling legalone_get_appointments, but the list/get distinction is reasonably inferred from the naming and verb.

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 operational context by mentioning OData and instructing to filter with $filter/$top/$skip/$orderby/$expand, implying when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over legalone_get_appointments or legalone_odata_get, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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