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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ownership fallback chain (owner_id → deal owner → contact owner), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about side effects such as notifications, whether the vinculum can fail if IDs are wrong, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences with the linking constraint front-loaded and the ownership default appended as a secondary rule. No filler, though the parenthetical could be folded into a tighter clause.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the cross-field constraint and ownership defaulting but omits return shape, failure modes and guidance on the remaining optional fields. Adequate to call it correctly in the common case, not complete.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the relationship among contato_id, oportunidade_id and owner_id, but leaves tipo, prioridade, descricao and the ISO requirement for data_vencimento (the one schema-documented field aside) to the schema alone — five of eight parameters get no added meaning.

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 ('Cria uma tarefa') plus the key linking constraint (contact and/or opportunity, at least one). This clearly separates it from the read-side sibling tarefa_list, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 one real usage rule: at least one of contato_id or oportunidade_id must be supplied. It does not say when to prefer this over nota_create for recording information, nor what happens on invalid combinations beyond the minimum-one rule.

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