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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'leitura' label and the no-filter default behavior, but it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authentication nuances. This is adequate but not rich 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 three concise sentences with the core purpose first, followed by filter details and default behavior. Every sentence contributes information without repetition or filler.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, filter semantics, and default result. The main omission is the unexplained 'account' parameter and any mention of pagination, but overall the tool is well enough described for an agent to invoke it 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 does so by explaining tags as UUIDs, date_from/date_to as an ISO 8601 date range, and source_url_contains as a filter. However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap in an otherwise helpful explanation.

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 os cards da sua base Recall (leitura)', clearly naming the action (list), the resource (Recall cards), and the access mode (read). It also distinguishes this list-oriented tool from siblings like recall_get_card and recall_search by describing the full list behavior with optional filters.

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 usage context by explaining optional filters and the default behavior when no filters are provided ('Sem filtros, retorna seus cards'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for basic selection among siblings.

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