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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: the operation is scoped to the logged-in company, and a duplicate CpfCnpj triggers a specific error carrying the existing Id. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or whether partially-specified addresses are normalized, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and the workflow/error guidance trailing. Nothing is filler, though the parenthetical field list is slightly compressed relative to the parameter surface.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the duplicate-error workflow well. The gap is the input side: 10 parameters at 0% schema coverage remain largely unexplained, which is a meaningful omission for a create 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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only glosses about four of them (CpfCnpj, Nome, Endereco, Ie). Optional fields like Im, Email, Telefone, IndicadorIe, ConsumidorFinal, and the entire nested Endereco structure (9 subfields) get no meaning, format, or nullability guidance.

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 ('Cadastra um novo Cliente no sistema da empresa logada') and enumerates the core identity fields (CNPJ/CPF, razao social, endereco, IE). It clearly distinguishes itself from cliente_consultar (read) and cliente_editar (update) by naming both siblings.

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 explicit sequencing ('Use depois de cliente_consultar quando o usuario confirmar') and an explicit failure branch: duplicate CpfCnpj returns an error with the existing Id, in which case use cliente_editar. Both when-to-use and the alternative path are spelled out.

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