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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, via the dedup-by-CNPJ behavior and the enrich_company follow-up workflow. What it leaves ambiguous is the duplicate outcome (error vs. returning the existing record) and whether enrich_company needs the returned ID.

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, no repetition, with the required-field constraint and the enrichment follow-up front-loaded before the dedup caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description never says what creation returns — notably the company identifier that the recommended enrich_company follow-up would need. For a 7-parameter mutation tool that is a real gap, though the essential how-to-call information is present.

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 coverage is 100% with every one of the 7 fields individually described (including the lead|prospect|client|inactive values and CNPJ format flexibility), so the schema already does the work. The description only reiterates that 'name' is required, adding no format or semantic detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cria uma empresa no cadastro') and immediately scopes it against the sibling enrichment tool ('use enrich_company depois'), so an agent can distinguish creation from enrichment and from get_company/list_companies without opening a 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 the minimum viable input ('Informe pelo menos o nome') and an explicit follow-up path when CNPJ is supplied. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when the company already exists' / 'check list_companies first' statement, but the dedup-by-CNPJ note covers the main decision point.

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