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

The description discloses a key behavior: partial failure handling ('Um id que falhar não derruba os demais'). This goes beyond the built-in annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and adds transparency about error resilience.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It delivers the core purpose and a notable behavioral detail, with 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?

The description covers the main function and a behavioral nuance, but it lacks details about return format, error handling (beyond partial failures), or any additional context such as required parameters or potential edge cases. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The parameter 'client_ids' is mentioned only in the schema with no description. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter, its format, or constraints beyond the name, leaving the schema's 0% coverage uncompensated.

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 the tool's function: 'Detalha um ou vários clientes pelos ids' (details one or several clients by ids), distinguishing it from list operations like tiflux_list_clients. It also emphasizes a single call, which adds specificity.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tiflux_list_clients for all clients). The purpose is implied by the name and description, but no usage context or exclusions are given.

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