list_users_with_weak_authentication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague phrase 'com evidência técnica', which hints that results carry supporting evidence but never says what that evidence is or how it is shaped.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded via the parenthetical enumeration. Efficient, though the language differs from the English sibling vocabulary, which slightly weakens matching.

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 filtered-list tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter effects and roughly what comes back. It instead stops at scope, leaving the agent to guess how limiting or MFA inclusion behave.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails it. It never explains what 'limit' controls or what 'include_mfa_registered' toggles, even though that boolean materially changes the result set.

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 usuários') and defines the scope precisely by enumerating which authentication methods count as weak (sms/voice/email/password). It is distinguishable from adjacent siblings like list_users_without_mfa, though it never names them or the contrast explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this or list_users_without_mfa / assess_privileged_mfa is the right call for a given authentication-posture question.

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