GET /persons (Person)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about array parameter formats and the critical new pagination requirement, but the included example body (username/password) is irrelevant for a GET endpoint and may mislead about the tool's behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately concise but includes an unnecessary example body that does not relate to the tool's operation. The most important information is front-loaded, but the extraneous content reduces clarity.

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 output schema, the description should explain the response structure, but it only references a vague example and does not describe returned fields. The example body is irrelevant, leaving the agent underinformed about what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by clarifying that array-valued parameters accept comma-separated values and by highlighting the mandatory 'limit' parameter for the new pagination model, which is not fully captured in the schema alone.

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 explicitly states 'Listagem paginada de pessoas' (paginated listing of persons), which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The tool name 'list_persons' aligns perfectly, and it is distinguished from sibling tools like 'get_person' (single) and 'create_person'.

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 implies usage for listing persons but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions pagination constraints but lacks direct guidance on when-not-to-use or comparisons with siblings. The example body is irrelevant and may confuse.

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