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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds context about the bank's purpose and workflow (saved templates). It does not introduce new behavioral traits beyond 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?

The description is concise with about four sentences covering purpose, sibling distinction, workflow, and batch support. It is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, though the 'Actions:' line could be slightly streamlined.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and only partial parameter explanation, the description fails to fully cover what the tool needs and returns. It mentions 'see available names' but not the response structure, leaving incompleteness for an agent.

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%, but the description adds meaning for patient_ids (bulk support) and hints at sending names. However, it does not explain limite, account, or patient_id individually, leaving gaps.

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 reads 'Listas e Orientações' specifically the orientation bank (favorites). It distinguishes between list_banco (bank) and the sibling list (patient-specific), using specific verbs and resources.

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 explicitly instructs to use list_banco to see available names before using the write tool to send, and mentions bulk support with patient_ids. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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