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 the HTTP GET endpoint, which reinforces the read-only nature, but it does not disclose behavior like pagination, filtering limits, or response shape. This is consistent with the annotations, and the safety bar is already met.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. The 'Ocorrências:' category prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded with the action.

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?

The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the input parameters or behavior. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the agent knows this lists occurrences but not what 'query' or 'account' mean, how results are returned, or whether filtering is applied.

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 does not mention the 'query' or 'account' parameters at all. The agent is left with only the parameter names and types, with no explanation of what they do or how they affect the occurrence listing.

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 verb and resource: 'Listar ocorrências (GET /ocorrencias)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling occurrence tools like superlogica_ocorrencias_create, superlogica_ocorrencias_update, and superlogica_ocorrencias_delete.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It relies entirely on the verb 'Listar' to imply the use case, and there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when another occurrence-related tool would be more appropriate.

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