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 method (GET), which corroborates non-mutating behavior, but reveals nothing about authentication, pagination, or result shape.

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 compact line with the operation and endpoint front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the 'Ocorrências:' prefix and parenthetical endpoint add little structural value beyond the tool name.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what `query` and `account` mean; it does not. It is complete enough to identify the intended operation but not enough for an agent to use optional filters correctly.

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?

Input schema has two parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention `query` or `account` at all. With schema coverage at 0%, the description was responsible for explaining these parameters and fails to do so.

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?

Describes the action ('Listar sugestões') and resource ('Ocorrências') plus the exact endpoint, so an agent can tell it lists suggestions under occurrences. It is distinct from siblings like `superlogica_ocorrencias_list` and `superlogica_ocorrencias_adicionarsugestao` by its wording, but it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 statement about when to call this tool versus `superlogica_ocorrencias_list`, `superlogica_ocorrencias_adicionarsugestao`, or other occurrence tools. The only usage signal is the verb 'Listar', which is implied by the purpose rather than explicit guidance. No prerequisites, filters, or exclusions are mentioned.

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