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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the result includes each client's tour count, which is not conveyed by annotations or schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the resource, scope, and return content with no wasted text. The parenthetical adds relevant context without bloating the 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is returned, including tour counts. Minor gaps such as ordering or empty-account behavior are not critical for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the schema is empty and complete for this operation.

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 verb and resource in Portuguese: it lists the account's clients/brands and includes how many tours each has. This clearly identifies the operation beyond the title, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_client or list_tours.

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?

Usage is implied by the parenthetical that agencies organize tours by client, which suggests when a client list is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as list_tours.

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