listar_ucs

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

The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a scope clarification that it does not download invoices, which is a mild behavioral note. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects beyond what annotations already cover.

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 concise, with two short sentences that convey the purpose and a key limitation. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits any explanation of the 'refresh' parameter, which is the sole input. It also does not mention prerequisites like the account configuration, though that might be implicit. The lack of parameter explanation makes the description incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 only parameter 'refresh' is completely unexplained in the description. The schema provides type and default but no semantic meaning. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all. This leaves the agent guessing what 'refresh' controls.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: lists consumer units available in the configured Equatorial account. The verb 'Lista' is specific, and the resource 'Unidades Consumidoras' is well-defined. It also explicitly differentiates from downloading invoices, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 provides a clear 'when-not' guideline by stating it does not download invoices, implying that invoice downloads should use a different tool. It also implies 'when' to use it (when listing consumer units), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit usage scenarios. The hint is sufficient given the context of sibling tools like 'listar_faturas' and 'baixar_fatura'.

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