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

Annotations already establish this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that: it does not say whether an existing contact/phone is reused or duplicated, whether required fields like pipeline stage must already exist, or what errors occur on conflict — meaningful gaps for a create operation with 10 parameters.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the use case second; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical '(contato)' is the only element that slightly muddies rather than clarifies.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits side effects (contact creation/dedup by phone), stage validation, and what is returned on success. The rich schema compensates for parameter coverage, but behavioral completeness is only minimally adequate.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the enum status and the funil/pipeline_stage_name relationship. The description only echoes 'valor do negócio e etapa do pipeline', which adds no format, default, or dependency information beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Cria') and resource ('nova negociação no CRM') and scopes it with 'valor do negócio e etapa do pipeline', which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling mutations like create_contact or create_pipeline. The parenthetical '(contato)' creates minor ambiguity about whether a contact record is also created, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

'Use para registrar oportunidades comerciais recebidas externamente' gives a use-case scenario, so an agent knows the intended context. However, no alternatives or exclusions are stated (e.g., when to prefer create_contact, or update_deal for existing deals), and the schema's reference to list_pipelines is the only routing help available.

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