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

The description's 'Listar' and 'GET /configuracoes' are consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so there is no contradiction. It adds a little beyond the annotations — the exact endpoint and the per-condominium scope — but does not disclose pagination, what 'específicas' filters on, or authentication expectations. With annotations already covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the domain, verb, resource, and endpoint with zero filler. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of the tool name or the schema.

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 tool with two fully undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin for an agent to call it correctly. It also leaves the relationship to superlogica_configuracoes_list_get unresolved. The annotations cover only the safety profile, not parameter semantics or return shape.

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% for the two parameters (query, account), so the description carries the burden of explaining them, and it does not. 'de um condomínio' only faintly implies that account selects the condominium, while query is entirely unexplained — an agent cannot determine what value to pass for either parameter.

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 clear action (Listar/List), a specific resource (configurações de um condomínio), and includes the HTTP endpoint (GET /configuracoes), so an agent knows what operation this performs. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its confusingly similar sibling superlogica_configuracoes_list_get, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_configuracoes_list_get or superlogica_configuracoes_create. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context beyond the 'Condomínios' domain prefix, so an agent must guess which list endpoint fits the situation.

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