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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, idempotentHint:true, destructiveHint:false. Description adds nothing beyond 'list', but it is consistent with annotations. No extra behavioral details such as limits, auth, or return specifics.

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 short sentence, extremely concise with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, but its brevity borders on under-specification, hence not a 5.

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?

With three undocumented parameters MATERIAL-ONLY and no output schema, the description provides no contextual guidance on filters, authentication, or expected results. It is minimally adequate for a simple list operation but leaves significant gaps.

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 mentions none of the three parameters (account, filters, alterado_apos). It provides zero semantic value beyond parameter names. With no parameter info in either schema or description, the agent is left guessing.

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 'Lista títulos financeiros' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (financial titles). It also includes the endpoint GET /v1/titulos, which is specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming the specific resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like mercos_list_pedidos or mercos_list_comissoes. No explicit context or exclusions provided.

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