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 useful context about the scope ('vinculadas a este install') and the return shape (id, label), but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, authentication needs, or how the optional 'account' parameter affects results.

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a dash-separated note on the returned fields. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool, the core behavior and return fields are present, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the undocumented 'account' parameter and the lack of explicit usage guidance leave part of the invocation contract unclear.

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?

There is one optional string parameter ('account') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot infer whether 'account' filters a specific connection, selects an installation, or should simply be omitted. The description provides no compensation for this gap.

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 concrete verb ('Lista'), a specific resource (Superlógica connections/licenses linked to this install), and the returned fields (id, label). It is clearly distinct from the many superlogica_* sibling list tools because it targets installation-level connections/licenses.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need the Superlógica connection IDs and labels for the current install. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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