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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them: the response contains health data governed by LGPD, which signals sensitivity. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. But the trailing 'GET /patient/list-dependents.' duplicates information already implied by the tool name and adds little for an agent, while the missing verb makes the core statement harder to parse.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition conveys the essential shape: dependents of one patient, health data. The remaining gaps (identifier format, result contents) are modest relative to this tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must carry the burden for patient_id. 'Under one patient' only indirectly implies that patient_id selects the parent patient; it does not state the expected identifier type (internal ID vs. CPF/record number) or the error behavior for unknown IDs.

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 fragment 'Dependents registered under one patient' identifies the resource (patient dependents) and the scoping (one patient), which separates it from feegow_list_patients and feegow_get_patient. However, it omits an explicit verb and reads as a noun phrase; the GET path restates the operation but the agent must infer 'lists'.

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 on when to use this instead of feegow_get_patient (which may also return linked records) or feegow_list_patients. No prerequisites, no mention of what happens when a patient has no dependents.

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