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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the GET endpoint and period filter, but it does not disclose pagination, return format, authentication needs, or rate-limit behavior.

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 one compact sentence that efficiently includes purpose and endpoint. The leading 'Despesas:' label is slightly redundant with the resource name stated in the rest of the sentence, so it is not perfectly lean.

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 call, the description is nearly adequate, but the undocumented query/account parameters and the absence of an output schema leave gaps in what an agent needs to call it with full confidence.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'query' and 'account' parameters. It mentions 'por período' but never maps that concept to either parameter, leaving the agent unable to infer how to format the request.

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 verb ('Listar'), a resource ('despesas'), a scope ('por período'), and the HTTP endpoint (GET /despesas/index). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling despesas tools that create, delete, estornar, or liquidar expenses.

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 the many despesas siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The context 'list by period' only implies usage rather than explicitly stating when this 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.