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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it names the write target ('GRAVA no upCampo') and mandates a confirm-before-call and report-after-write protocol. It does not mention permission/auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then moves efficiently into prerequisite tool, conditional branches, and the confirmation protocol. The lines are short and purposeful, though the interno/externo field lists partially duplicate the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameter detail. The description covers the main create workflow and confirmation loop well; the alter-existing path via id_lancamento is documented only in the schema, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters including the Interno/Externo conditionals on id_bomba, id_produto, descricao_posto, and preco_litro. The description restates those same conditional requirements, adding emphasis but little new semantic detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Registra um abastecimento de equipamento'), which clearly places it among the lancar_* write tools and disambiguates it from the consultar_* readers. An agent can tell immediately that this creates a fueling record rather than querying one.

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 branching guidance: use consultar_frota first to find the equipment, then choose Interno (id_bomba) or Externo (descricao_posto, id_produto, preco_litro) with the required fields for each. It also prescribes the interaction workflow (summarize and confirm before calling, report after writing), leaving little to inference.

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