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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the endpoint but does not mention any side effects or additional behavioral details. Since it's a read operation, the transparency is sufficient, but the description itself adds little beyond the annotations.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose and endpoint. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for a short tool description.

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?

While the tool is simple (no output schema), the lack of any parameter explanation makes it incomplete. Users cannot effectively use the tool without understanding what account, filters, and alterado_apos represent. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 three parameters (account, filters, alterado_apos) have no descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not explain their meanings or usage. There is zero parameter documentation, making it impossible for a user to know how to set these fields correctly.

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 sellers/users, which is a specific resource. The endpoint /v1/usuarios is provided, and among sibling list tools it's distinct in scope. The purpose is 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?

The description gives the HTTP method and resource but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., mercos_list_clientes). It implies usage for user/seller listings, but lacks explicit context or exclusions. Adequate but minimal.

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