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

The description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the tool is disabled, which is not conveyed by the annotations. The destructiveHint annotation is present, but the description's 'Módulo desativado' provides the operational context that calls will not execute. This goes beyond the annotation's basic safety hint.

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 key disabled status, and contains no unnecessary verbiage. It is concise and well-structured for a disabled tool.

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?

The description fully covers the situation: the tool is disabled, contact support for reactivation. With no parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, this is complete for an agent to understand it should not be invoked. The only minor gap is lack of alternative tooling, but that is not essential.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and there is nothing to add.

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 clearly states that the module is disabled in Core v3.0, which communicates that the tool is unavailable. While it does not describe what the tool does, the title and name indicate it is for creating an orçamento, and the disabled status is the relevant purpose for an agent. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only disabled tool.

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?

The description tells the agent to contact support for reactivation, implying the tool should not be used. However, it does not mention any alternative tools (e.g., listar_orcamentos) or provide explicit when-to-use guidance. The implicit instruction is strong but lacks alternative directions.

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