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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the behavior of partial name search, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination, default ordering, or any side effects. Thus it provides some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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—two sentences total. The first sentence states the core action and behavior, the second provides domain context. No filler or redundancy, achieving high information density with zero waste.

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 adequately explains the purpose and domain relationship, but it is incomplete for a listing tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema. It lacks details on filtering (beyond name), pagination, and defaults. However, given the annotations cover safety, it is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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, the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explains the 'name' parameter via 'busca parcial por nome'. The 'limit', 'active', and 'offset' parameters are left undocumented in both schema and description. This is a significant gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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: 'Lista as mesas de atendimento' (lists service desks) and adds the search capability ('busca parcial por nome'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tiflux_list_desk_stages and tiflux_list_desk_priorities by explaining that the desk defines those resources, so the purpose is specific and well-scoped.

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 implies when to use this tool by mentioning that desks define stages, priorities, and service catalogs, which hints that those sub-resources are accessed via other tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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