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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'propõe' and the exclusion 'para alterar guias' imply a non-mutating planning operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether proposals are persisted.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed immediately by usage and exclusion guidance. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with six parameters, nested objects, an enum, and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool computes from the inputs or how the input structures should be formed.

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%, and the description only repeats the required parameter concepts 'decisões' and 'guias'. It adds no meaning for optional keys such as id_key, status_key, operadora_key, or prestador_key, nor for nested decision fields like decision, motivo, or guia_ref.

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 ('Propõe') and resources ('decisões e guias'), so an agent can tell it is about proposing links rather than editing. It partially distinguishes from alteration tools via 'Quando não usar: para alterar guias', but it does not name a sibling or define what a 'vínculo' is.

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 explicit when-to-use context ('após ler um demonstrativo') and an explicit when-not-to-use condition ('para alterar guias'). It does not name the alternative sibling to use for alteration, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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