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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so a write operation is expected. The description adds '[write, altera dados]' which repeats this hint without additional insight into side effects, required permissions, or outcome. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 short (one line), which is concise, but it lacks substance. It front-loads the endpoint and a write flag, but under-specification negates the benefit of 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 tool's complexity (write operation, 2 undocumented parameters, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain request body structure, account usage, or expected behavior, making it inadequate for reliable 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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no meaning for the two parameters ('body' and 'account'). With no parameter documentation in either schema or description, the agent cannot correctly construct requests.

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 action: 'Restaurar negócios' (restore businesses) and provides the endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling actions like lose, move, and win by using a specific verb, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'restore' entails.

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 other business action tools (e.g., win, lose, move). The description merely names the action without explaining the context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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