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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Lista' aligns with them. The description adds useful context by scoping the results to installations connected to 'this install' and by specifying the output fields (id e label).

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and output.

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 is minimally viable: it explains the main action, scope, and output. However, the undocumented 'account' parameter and the absence of any usage guidance leave gaps that prevent a fully confident invocation.

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 schema has one optional parameter, 'account', with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions this parameter, so an agent cannot determine whether it filters installations, identifies a connection, or serves another purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('instalações Protheus conectadas a este install'), and even states the returned fields (id e label). This clearly distinguishes it from the domain-specific sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of how the optional 'account' parameter should affect usage. Sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent must infer usage largely from the tool name.

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