get_available_clients

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It does add some useful filtering information by saying 'configurados e disponíveis', indicating the client list is scoped to configured and available items. However, it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation requiring no side effects, any authentication assumptions, error behavior, or what happens when no clients are configured. For a simple zero-parameter fetch, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the scope efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent that the result is a list of available configured client slugs, which is enough to know what to expect. However, it omits any usage context or qualifications (e.g., when the list might be empty, whether slugs are strings), and the lack of an output schema means a bit more detail about the return shape would have been helpful. Still, the simplicity of the operation keeps it close to fully specified.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no parameters are needed and clarifies that the result is a list of slugs, adding semantic context beyond the empty schema. Nothing more is required for a parameterless tool.

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 verb 'Busca' (fetches) and the resource: 'a lista de todos os clientes (slugs) configurados e disponíveis neste servidor MCP da agência.' It specifies both the output (client slugs) and the scope (configured and available on this agency's MCP server). Among the large sibling list, no other tool targets 'clientes (slugs)' at this agency level, so it is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of a use case. The description only says what it does; it does not tell the agent when to prefer this over, for example, get_companies or get_contacts. Usage context is entirely absent.

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