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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add the newest-first ordering, a genuine behavioral trait not present in the schema, but says nothing about pagination, default page size, or whether the 200 limit truncates silently.

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 short sentence with the scope and ordering front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is terse enough to leave the limit parameter and result size unaddressed.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the basic contract is covered. However, the default/effective limit and what the response contains (ids usable as input to get_tour, move_tour_to_client, etc.) are left for the agent to guess.

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 only 50%: clientId is documented (including the special 'none' value, though the description adds nothing to it) while 'limit' has no description at all in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining the limit range, default value, or filtering semantics, so the undocumented half stays opaque.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Lista os tours (projetos)') plus a scope ('da conta') and an ordering guarantee ('do mais recente para o mais antigo'). It is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings like create_tour or get_tour, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_tour for single-item retrieval.

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 description never says when to prefer this over get_tour (single tour) or list_clients, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a clientId to narrow results. The only implicit signal is the word 'Lista' plus the account scope; an agent must infer the rest from the sibling names.

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