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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that this lists agreement compositions via a GET endpoint, which is consistent with the annotations. It does not add details about pagination, authentication, or response behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 short and packs the domain category, purpose, and endpoint into a single line. It is a bit awkwardly structured with slash-separated labels, but it has no filler and front-loads the relevant context before the endpoint.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description gives the endpoint, purpose, and domain context. However, it omits any semantics for 'query' and 'account', and since there is no output schema it does not clarify what the returned 'compositions' look like or how they should be used to generate the agreement.

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 the description provides no explanation of the two string parameters, 'query' and 'account'. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance on how to fill these fields.

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 states a specific action ('Listando composições do acordo') and identifies the resource via the endpoint ('GET /cobranca/index') and domain context ('Acordos'). It is clear enough to be recognized as a read-only listing tool for agreement compositions, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling superlogica_acordos_list.

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 phrase 'Obtendo dados para gerar o acordo' implies the usage context: use this when needing data to build an agreement. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named despite many relevant siblings such as superlogica_acordos_list or superlogica_acordos_simularparcelas.

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