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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond stating the HTTP GET endpoint. It does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, output format, or authentication requirements, and the description is consistent with 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 very short and somewhat front-loaded, but the 'Consumo:' prefix is largely redundant with the tool name and adds no value. It is concise but under-specified, leaving important semantic gaps.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It conveys only the basic resource and HTTP method, leaving an agent to guess at the intended values for 'query' and 'account'.

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 input schema has two parameters, 'query' and 'account', with 0% description coverage, and the tool description gives no explanation of their meaning, format, or relationship. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation at all.

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 identifies a clear verb and resource: 'Consulta de consumo' (consumption query) and specifies the endpoint 'GET /consumo/index'. This makes the tool's basic function understandable, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling consumo_put_create and consumo_put_update 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_consumo_put_create or superlogica_consumo_put_update. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended call patterns, or situations where a different consumption-related tool should be chosen.

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