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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden; it does disclose the non-obvious monetary side effect ("Gasta créditos quando a certidão sai") and mandates user confirmation, which is valuable. It omits what happens to items already requested or ineligible, failure/idempotency behavior, and what the call returns, which is a meaningful gap for a costly mutation with no annotation coverage.

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-loads the action and keeps to roughly two sentences, with the credit warning placed at the end where it is most visible. The parenthetical "ou só item_ids" is syntactically awkward and slightly obscures the parameter-mode distinction.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation that spends money, the description covers the cost side effect but leaves the return value, the effect on already-requested items, and valid item_ids sourcing unexplained. The schema also documents nothing, so the definition is only minimally sufficient to call this safely.

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 0% for both parameters. The description only obliquely explains item_ids ("ou só item_ids (também repete as que pararam)") without stating format, where to obtain valid IDs, or whether an empty/missing value means all ready items; diligence_id is never described at all. This does not adequately compensate for a completely undocumented schema.

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?

Names a concrete verb ("Pede aos órgãos" / request from agencies) and a concrete resource ("certidões da diligência"), and scopes it to certificates not yet requested (status "ready"). It does not explicitly name an alternative among siblings such as request_documents or retry_item, even though the "repete as que pararam" clause overlaps with retry_item, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear trigger condition: request certificates with status "ready" that haven't been requested, or restrict to specific item_ids (including re-running stopped ones). It also adds an important precondition — confirm with the user unless they explicitly asked to fetch, because credits are spent — but offers no explicit exclusion or named alternative tool.

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