feegow_list_procedures

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

No annotations exist, and the description adds no behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, sorting, rate limits, required permissions, or what happens with missing filters. The HTTP method is indicated, but this is minimal. The agent lacks insight into the tool's runtime behavior.

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 very short—only one sentence with the endpoint. It is concise and front-loads the action and resource. However, it could include a brief list of filter types without losing conciseness. The current length is acceptable for a list endpoint.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits what the response contains (e.g., procedure IDs, names, types), pagination details, and how filters interact. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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 coverage is 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema; it only says 'com filtros opcionais' (with optional filters). For the 4 undocumented parameters (i, unidade_id, procedimento_id, profissional_id), the description offers no help. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does some work but the description fails to compensate for gaps.

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 it lists procedures with optional filters. It uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('procedimentos'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like feegow_list_procedure_bundles or feegow_list_procedure_insurances, which could confuse an agent selecting among similar list 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., feegow_list_procedure_bundles, feegow_procedures_by_professional). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is not appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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