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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational detail beyond annotations: client-side pagination and a 15-minute cache, both of which affect how an agent should interpret calls and pagination parameters.

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 compact: purpose, endpoint, pagination model, and cache TTL in four short fragments. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only list endpoint with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It covers what is listed, how pagination works, and cache behavior, so no critical operational detail appears missing.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters, including defaults and maximum page size, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the 'client-side pagination' nuance, which modestly clarifies the behavior of pagina/tamanho_pagina but does not substantially augment the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('garantias contratuais') and includes the exact endpoint path, making the tool's function unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from the many compras_contrato_* siblings, none of which target guarantees.

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 intended use is inferable: list contractual guarantees for a given contract ID. However, the description does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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