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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that the account read includes plan credits, status, and period, and mentions 25/page for the users action. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds only modest behavioral detail beyond them.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'Conta ZapSign (leitura)', which is good. However, it includes the 'users' action even though the tool is flattened to 'plan', adding unnecessary noise and potential confusion.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should fully explain the tool's behavior and inputs. It mentions plan fields but leaves the 'page' and 'account' parameters unexplained and does not describe what the output looks like or error/edge-case behavior.

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 provides no explanation of the 'page' or 'account' parameters. Neither the description nor the schema clarifies what these parameters mean in the context of the plan action, so the agent cannot properly determine how to fill them.

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 states a specific read action for the account plan: 'plan (info do plano: créditos, status, período)'. This clearly identifies the resource and the kind of data returned. However, it muddles the purpose by also listing a 'users' action followed by '[Flattened action: plan]', which creates ambiguity about whether the tool also lists users.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling zapsign_account_users or other account tools. The description implies it is for reading account plan information but does not state exclusions or name alternatives, leaving usage context weak.

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