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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint and domain context ('Prestação de contas'), which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination, authentication requirements, or result format. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence with the endpoint front-loaded. It is efficient and easily scannable, though the brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage information.

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 with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly without knowing what 'query' and 'account' accept. The read-only annotations help with safety assessment but not with practical invocation.

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. An agent has no way to know what these parameters mean, what formats they expect, or how they affect the report listing. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Listar relatórios' (list reports) with the GET /relatorios endpoint. It is understandable and distinct in intent, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling report-related tools like superlogica_relatorios_id_025a or superlogica_relatoriosselecao_list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. It only states what the endpoint does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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