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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutation on an open diligence and that certidões wait for fetch_certidoes unless fetch=true, but it does not cover permissions, duplicate handling, or side effects.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core action and then explains the relevant input distinctions. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, parameter meaning, party scoping, and the fetch behavior. It still omits authorization expectations, duplicate behavior, and outcome details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains party_ids as coming from get_diligence.parties, certidoes as IDs from list_catalog, documents as free titles with an example, title as a single free document title, and fetch as an alternative to fetch_certidoes.

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: adding documents to the list of an already-open diligence. It distinguishes certidoes (IDs from list_catalog) from documents (free titles such as contrato social), though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling upload_document.

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 clear usage conditions: use an already-open diligence, apply to all companies or restrict via party_ids from get_diligence.parties, use certidoes IDs from list_catalog, and use fetch=true or rely on fetch_certidoes. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like upload_document or request_documents.

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