flat_list_scores

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by revealing that the result contains a 'next_cursor' for paging — information that is not in the schema or an (absent) output schema. It omits the read-only nature, auth requirements, and the default page size.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the resource is named first, then facets, then pagination. Minor polish issues (a missing space after 'title.', mixed Portuguese/English phrasing) slightly hurt readability.

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 4-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essentials (what it lists, how to filter, how to page) are covered, but the page-size parameter and the operation's safety/auth profile are left entirely to inference. Adequate, not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document collection (four accepted value families, including a raw collection id) and sort (three allowed values), but leaves limit and the cursor parameter's origin unstated beyond the passing mention of 'next_cursor'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista partituras') and immediately scopes it via the collection values, so an agent knows this is a browsing/list operation rather than a lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like flat_find_score or flat_list_collections, which an agent must infer.

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?

Usage is implied: browse all scores, a collaboration list, trash, or one collection. The pagination instruction ('Use next_cursor do resultado para a próxima página') gives procedural guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement and no mention of when flat_find_score would be preferable.

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