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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds that the link is a signed JWT URL, but it leaves ambiguity about whether the link is actually sent to the client (despite the tool name 'enviar') or just returned for manual delivery. It also does not mention permissions, audit logging, or error behavior.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by the scope list. There is no filler or redundant explanation, so it earns every word.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core generation function well, but it omits expected return format and delivery behavior. The name 'enviar' versus the description 'retorna' creates a gap that should be clarified for complete context.

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 baseline is 3. The description's scope list merely duplicates the enum and does not add extra meaning for parameters like motivo or ttlDias beyond what the schema already 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Gera e retorna' and identifies a concrete resource: a Magic Link (JWT-signed URL) for client portal access. It also lists the four scopes, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enviar_relatorio_email.

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 clearly implies the main use case: generating access links for clients to the portal. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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