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

Annotations cover only safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: duplicate rejection by Codigo, NCM zero-pad normalization for 7/8 digits, and EAN/GTIN check-digit validation. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure modes for other fields.

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, no filler, with the creation statement and the most error-prone validation rules front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the validation rules cover the trickiest inputs. However, for an 11-parameter create tool with 0% schema documentation, the majority of fields remain unexplained in both schema and 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 description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only three fields (Codigo, Ncm, Ean) and says nothing about Cest, FatorConversao, QuantidadeEstoque, ValorUnitarioVenda, or the unidade-medida fields.

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 ('Cadastra') and resource ('novo Produto') plus scope ('na empresa logada'), which clearly separates it from produto_editar and produto_consultar. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it isn't 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this over produto_editar or produto_consultar, nor any stated prerequisites. The creation intent is only implied by the verb and the duplicate-check note.

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