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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it mentions the OData endpoint and that it lists contacts—but does not disclose response format, pagination, or any side effects. This is acceptable given the annotations, but no extra value is added.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource type. It avoids fluff and directly states the filtering capabilities. Efficient and well-structured, though slightly under-specified.

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 list tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation detail, the description gives the essential resource and filtering hints but lacks information on return structure, pagination behavior, or example usage. It hints at returning a list of contacts but does not elaborate. Given the annotations cover safety, this is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps for a complex OData interface.

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 explain parameters. It lists $filter, $top, $skip, $orderby, and $expand but does not define what each does, leaving interpretations to OData knowledge. It omits $select, $count, and query entirely. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptiveness.

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 clearly states the tool lists contacts (pessoas físicas/jurídicas) and specifies the types (clients, parties, lawyers), distinguishing it from get_contacts (which retrieves a single contact) and other list tools. It also names the OData endpoint, making the action unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs users to filter with $filter/$top/$skip/$orderby/$expand, providing immediate guidance on how to customize the list. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like legalone_get_contacts, the filter options and resource type make the intended use clear.

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