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 read-only GET behavior is covered by structured data. The description adds the endpoint and domain scope, but says nothing about pagination, filtering, authentication, or result shape — and it is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence containing a domain label, a verb, the resource, and the HTTP endpoint. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description carries too little load: it never explains what a returned 'cargo' record looks like or how to scope the call by account. The precise endpoint and domain identification are helpful, but an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this text alone.

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 either parameter. The generic names 'query' and 'account' leave the agent guessing about value format, whether account is a scoping requirement, and how the two parameters interact.

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 ('Listagem') and resource ('cargos de Responsável Legal') and pins the call to the GET /sindicos/cargos endpoint. The label 'Responsáveis Legais' plus the noun 'cargos' differentiates it from sibling listing tools such as superlogica_sindicos_list, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance appears anywhere in the description. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this lists roles rather than the sindicos themselves, and the text never compares it with superlogica_sindicos_list or superlogica_responsaveis_list.

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