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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only names a resource; it does not state that the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether there are side effects, or any caveats. The agent receives no behavioral detail beyond what the tool name implies.

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 text is short and without filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single noun phrase without a verb or additional context does not function as a complete tool definition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to at least explain that the tool returns a list and clarify what 'catálogo tocável' means. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess the return format and domain context. The tool may be simple, but the description still leaves important gaps.

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 tool accepts zero parameters and the input schema has no properties, so there is essentially no parameter-semantic burden. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed for a parameter-free tool.

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 is a noun phrase ('Idiomas do catálogo tocável') rather than a verb-plus-resource statement. Combined with the tool name it implies listing languages, but the description alone does not explicitly state the action. It does reference a distinct resource domain and is not a pure tautology.

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 provided about when to use list_languages instead of sibling list tools like list_countries or list_tags. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing hints, so an agent gets no help selecting this tool.

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