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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description aligns by saying 'Cria um novo post/anotação'. It adds a small hint about official API field mapping via named fields + `extra`, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or what the response contains.

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 only two short sentences and front-loads the primary action first. Every phrase earns its place, though it is slightly underspecified for parameter-rich contexts.

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?

With no output schema and sparse parameter semantics, the description should clarify return values, required fields, or failure modes; it does none of that. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves too much unspecified for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate; it only says fields are 'conforme a API oficial via campos nomeados + `extra`' without explaining what `text` means or how to populate `extra`. This leaves the agent with almost no guidance beyond the raw property names.

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 Portuguese description 'Cria um novo post/anotação' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (post/note), which directly distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools for customers, lawsuits, movements, and transactions. It is specific and unambiguous about the tool's core purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the creation verb and resource name, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites/exclusions. It is minimally sufficient, not more.

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