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

Annotations already declare this is a write, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it GRAVA no upCampo, requires summarizing the payload and confirming with the user before calling, and reporting back afterwards. Minor gap: the schema supports altering/removing existing items via id_lancamento/remover, yet the text says the tool 'só cria a ordem', so the update path is under-disclosed.

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 purpose, then prerequisites, then the exclusion, then the create-vs-execute distinction, then the write/confirm/report workflow. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 described, and the write workflow (confirm before, report after) is covered. The remaining shortfall is the unmentioned alter-mode (id_lancamento plus remover flags on nested items), which an agent must discover from the schema alone.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already carries parameter detail. The description adds sourcing semantics not in the schema by tying safra, talhões, produtos and equipamentos to their originating query tools, and clarifies the boundary that combustion/maintenance items are out of scope.

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 ('Cria uma ordem de serviço agrícola') and enumerates the covered activity types (plantio, aplicação, adubação, colheita). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling lancar_execucao_os and from fleet logging, so an agent can distinguish it without reading another schema.

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 prerequisites (resolve safra/produção/estoque/frota first, naming listar_safras, consultar_producao, consultar_estoque, consultar_frota), an explicit exclusion (fuel and machine maintenance belong to frota, not agricultural orders), and an explicit alternative for execution (lancar_execucao_os). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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