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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't add much on safety. It does specify the scope (this install) and the output fields (id, label), which adds some value beyond the annotations. 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, includes output fields. No 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?

Simple list tool with 0 paramsholiday, output described adequately.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it could mention any assumptions. Since there are none, it's fine. Score 4? But baseline is 4, so 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: listing webPosto accounts connected to the current installation, including id and label (CNPJ/user). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to see connected accounts) by stating 'connected to this install,' but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. Since sibling names like 'connect' and 'marketplace' contextually signal the difference, guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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