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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the return value (a submission link), a key property (no login required for the recipient), and the side-effect rule that e-mail is only dispatched when send_email=true. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether prior requests are replaced, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it returns with its access property, and the one conditional side effect. Zero padding and front-loaded.

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?

It covers the two biggest unknowns for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema — the returned link and the conditional e-mail. However, four of five parameters remain unexplained, including the required email field whose relationship to send_email is ambiguous, leaving real gaps for an agent to fill.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate — yet it only explains send_email ('Só envia e-mail se send_email=true'). The roles of diligence_id, item_ids, name, and email (required, but apparently not always used for delivery) are entirely undocumented.

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?

Specifies a concrete verb and resource — requesting multiple document items from an external party — and adds a clarifying example ('o financeiro da empresa'). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though the near-neighbour create_request is never named, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

Implies the usage scenario (collecting items from someone outside the org) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules and never routes the agent between this, create_request, and remind_request. The send_email conditional is the only explicit usage instruction.

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