listar_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only listing action and describes the returned content ('Resumo das features ativas com descrição e status de autenticação'), which is sufficient for a simple, non-mutating tool. It does not mention side effects because there are none.

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 and well-structured, with a clear opening statement, an explicit usage sentence, and a separate 'Returns:' section. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no waste.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple listing function, the description is complete. It explains what is listed, why to use it, and what is returned. The presence of an output schema means the description does not need to detail return values further.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further information is required.

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 function: 'Lista todas as features (APIs) disponíveis no mcp-brasil' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it reveals which government APIs are connected and which tools each offers, setting it apart from 'listar_datasets_disponiveis' and 'search_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?

Explicit context is provided in 'Use esta tool para saber quais APIs governamentais estão conectadas e quais tools cada uma oferece.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid, preventing a score of 5.

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