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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: the request is filed on the owner's behalf with consent, and 'A equipe responde no contato informado' tells the agent a human team follows up via the given contact, which implies a real-world side effect. It does not state what the caller receives back (confirmation, request ID), how duplicate submissions are handled, or any failure modes – a notable gap for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and recipient ('Registra ... o pedido ... da ASTTEC'), then the follow-up behavior, then the data-provenance restriction. Nothing is redundant, though the middle sentence about contact response could be folded into the schema note.

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 five-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization (consent), and the downstream response channel, which is what an agent needs before submitting. The missing pieces – confirmation/return behavior and duplicate or error handling – are modest but real gaps for a write operation.

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 100%, so all five parameters (nome, negocio, contato, bairro, mensagem) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only marginal meaning – that 'contato' is what the team will use to reply – but does not clarify the optional bairro/mensagem fields beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource combination – 'Registra ... o pedido do diagnóstico gratuito da ASTTEC' – so the agent knows this submits a free-diagnostic request to ASTTEC. It is clearly distinct from the sibling read/info tools (ler_pagina, listar_segmentos, sobre_asttec), although it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It gives meaningful usage constraints: act on behalf of the business owner, only with their consent, and 'Use só com dados que a própria pessoa forneceu' (only self-provided data). However, it offers no explicit when/when-not routing against the sibling tools and no prerequisites for calling, so the guidance is implied rather than fully specified.

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