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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds only '[write, altera dados]' which aligns with those annotations. However, it does not explain what 'lose' means in terms of business lifecycle, whether any data is historically preserved, or the effect on related entities, which is a gap given the non-idempotent and non-readOnly nature.

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 extremely concise, only one sentence plus the endpoint and tags. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 the lack of output schema, no annotations for semantics, and two unclear parameters, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain the request body format, required fields, possible errors, or what happens on success, so an agent would struggle to invoke 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% and there are two parameters ('body' and 'account') with no descriptions. The description does not explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., business ID, loss reason) or how 'account' is used, so it offers no added value beyond the schema 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 description states the tool is for losing businesses (POST /api/v1/businesses/actions/lose) and indicates it alters data, which is clear enough for the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like datacrazy_businesses_actions_win_create or datacrazy_businesses_actions_restore_create, beyond the verb in the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'lose businesses' with an endpoint, which implies usage but does not mention that win/restore/move are for other status changes, nor any prerequisites like needing an existing business or account.

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