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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: query is a case-insensitive substring, dates are inclusive YYYY-MM-DD, and with a filter it auto-paginates up to 5×100 and returns all matching results. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The filter and pagination details are packed efficiently in the second sentence without redundancy.

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 description conveys the core purpose and filter behavior well, but it omits the meaning of account/page/page_size and does not describe the return shape, which matters because there is no output schema. The no-filter pagination behavior is also left implicit.

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 there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It precisely documents query, date_from, and date_to semantics, but it does not explain account, page, or page_size, leaving a meaningful portion of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 opens with 'Lista gravações Plaud', naming a concrete verb (list) and resource (recordings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plaud_get_recording, plaud_get_notes, and plaud_get_transcript by scope and action.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: listing Plaud recordings with optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the listing scope versus the sibling get-style tools is evident from the description and tool names.

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