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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description's 'anexa' (attach) action. The description adds behavioral details: file linking to process, bulk support via case_ids/responsible_ids, and default behavior for description and responsible_id. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists parameters in a clear bullet style. It is slightly redundant (e.g., mentions vincular twice) but overall efficient and well-structured. Could be more concise but still good.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and bulk capability. It doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, but for a mutation tool with clear annotations (idempotentHint=false), this is sufficient. The agent has enough context to use it correctly.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter: case_id (process ID), attachments (three methods, file_name required), description (defaults to file names), and responsible_id (defaults to integration user). Also covers case_ids and responsible_ids via bulk support note. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the verb (anexa) and resource (documento a um processo do Astrea), specifying what types of documents are accepted. It distinguishes from siblings like astrea_documento_gerar by emphasizing that the attachment is always linked to the process, not to a task, which differentiates it from other document-related tools.

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 explains the tool's function and parameter usage (e.g., one of file_url/file_base64/upload_code for attachments) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like astrea_documento_gerar. It provides context on where the document links (process not task) but lacks comparative guidance for sibling tools.

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