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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the GET endpoint in the description is consistent with them. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, authentication requirements, or error behavior, so its marginal value beyond the annotations is small. No contradiction between description and 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?

A single compact sentence with a domain prefix, the action, and the endpoint in parentheses. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list operation.

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 this simple (2 optional string params, no output schema, no enums), the purpose and safety profile are adequately covered by the description plus annotations. The genuine gaps are the undocumented parameter meanings and the lack of routing against superlogica_planocontas_list, which leave an agent guessing on details and sibling selection but not on the core operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, both parameters (query and account) are bare strings with no schema-level meaning, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'de um plano de contas específico' plausibly maps account to the plan identifier, and 'Listar contas' indicates the returned objects. But query remains completely unexplained and no value formats or filter semantics are given.

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 specific resource (contas de um plano de contas), the domain (Condomínios), and even the HTTP endpoint (GET /planocontas). The qualifier 'específico' signals that this targets accounts within one plan rather than plans themselves. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from the near-identically named sibling superlogica_planocontas_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. This is especially damaging because the sibling list contains superlogica_planocontas_list and superlogica_planocontas_postconta/putconta, so an agent has no help choosing between listing plans and listing accounts of a plan. The only implicit hint is the word 'específico', which is not enough.

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