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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: price and retention model, required auth scope, failure conditions, returned pedido_id/url, paymentLink behavior, the fact that payment is never completed here, idempotency semantics, and a daily limit. This is rich and consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the action, price, and prerequisites before return behavior and limits. It is dense but appropriately sized for a tool with several operational constraints, though the single semicolon-heavy sentence is not maximally readable.

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?

Covers cost, auth, prerequisites, failure modes, return identifiers, payment flow, idempotency, and rate limits. With an output schema present, no essential agent-facing behavior is missing.

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 the single id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description mentions auction CRU/IDUFIR requirements but does not add syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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: initiating the order for a registral nota simple of an auction. It is clear in isolation, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as nota_simple_estado or notas_simples_listar.

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 preconditions: verified account with scope notas:write and auction with CRU/IDUFIR, plus the not_orderable failure condition. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when another sibling should be used instead.

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