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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only the 'all' scope signal, with no detail on pagination, response shape, or how the query/account parameters modify the returned data. This is adequate but not enriching 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, scope, and endpoint with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the meaning of both parameters and the return format unexplained. It is barely sufficient for a bare 'list all' invocation but insufficient for filtered or account-scoped calls, which the presence of query and account parameters implies are possible.

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 never explains the meaning of 'query' or 'account'. The weak implicit hint is the contrast between 'todos' (all) and the presence of optional parameters, suggesting they may filter results, but this is far from explicit. An agent cannot know how to populate either parameter correctly.

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 names a specific action ('Listar' — list), a concrete resource (condomínios/condominiums), the scope ('todos' — all), and an explicit HTTP endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from the CRUD siblings superlogica_condominios_create and superlogica_condominios_update, though it relies on their names rather than explicitly naming them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the create/update siblings or any other alternative. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues about when listing all condominiums is the right call. The agent is left entirely to inference.

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