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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: CEP unlocks 'opções REAIS' of freight (implying estimates without it), and it discloses the default behavior when options are omitted (canvas ships as a rolled print, cheaper freight). That is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries actionable content (CEP requirement, option fidelity, freight cost difference). The last sentence is slightly verbose but earns its place by explaining the default that drives freight cost.

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?

With 6 params, 1 required, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key operational facts an agent needs: CEP for real freight, option names sourced from cotar(), and the consequence of omitting options. Return-detail gaps are acceptable since the schema documents CEP's returned fields.

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 100%, so baseline 3, but the description adds real meaning: options must match cotar() names exactly, cannot be replaced by observacoes, and materially change both price and freight; it also explains the canvas/chassis example and the store default. This reinforces rather than merely repeats 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?

States a concrete verb/resource pair: production deadline plus delivery/pickup options for São Paulo, and mentions freight calculation from the destination CEP. It is distinguishable from cotar and criar_pedido by scope, though it never names those siblings and blurs the line with cotar's pricing role.

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?

Gives calling guidance ('Informe o CEP', 'Passe as mesmas opcoes do pedido'), but that is parameter instruction rather than when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives. No explicit exclusion or routing rule against cotar is provided, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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