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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the sparse annotations: duplicate validation by Codigo, automatic zero-padding for NCM, and check digit validation for EAN/GTIN. These are important mutations that the agent should know.

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 concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. No redundant or vague wording.

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 11 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers key validations for critical fields but omits behavior for optional parameters. Some context is provided, but not fully complete for a tool with many optional inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'Codigo' (duplicate check), 'Ncm' (format constraints), and 'Ean' (validation). However, it does not explain other parameters like 'Id', 'Cest', 'FatorConversao', leaving 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 states 'Cadastra um novo Produto na empresa logada', clearly indicating the verb (cadastrar/criar) and resource (Produto), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'produto_editar' and 'produto_consultar'.

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?

The description mentions validation rules for duplicate code, NCM format, and EAN check digit, which guide when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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