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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it is paginated ('Paginado'), which is a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not mention ordering, rate limits, or other behaviors.

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 extremely concise with two phrases, no unnecessary words. However, it is in Portuguese and lacks sentence structure; but for a short description it is efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It only covers pagination but leaves out filtering behavior, required account context, and return format, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at pagination (relevant for page/items) but does not explain account or filters. The schema itself has no descriptions, leaving agents uninformed about parameter meanings.

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 it lists Procfy cost centers ('Lista centros de custo da Procfy') and mentions pagination, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like procfy_list_accounts or procfy_list_bank_accounts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. Only mentions pagination, which is implicit from the parameters.

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