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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false. The description adds '[write, altera dados]', which clarifies the operation writes data. While this aligns with annotations and reinforces the non-read-only nature, it does not disclose further behavioral details like idempotency caveats, permissions, or side effects, missing an opportunity to add more value.

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, with a single front-loaded sentence containing the action, endpoint, and a write indicator. While it wastes no words, the '[write, altera dados]' tag is partially redundant with annotations, and the saved space could have been better used for parameter clarifications.

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 mutation action with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the body should contain, what 'winning' a business semantically involves, or any required account context, making it inadequate for correct 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% and the description provides zero information about the two string parameters ('body' and 'account'). The description neither explains the expected format, purpose, nor relationship to the body/account fields, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond param 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 'Ganhar negócios' (Win businesses) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling actions like 'lose' (datacrazy_businesses_actions_lose_create) and 'move'. Including the full HTTP endpoint (POST /api/v1/businesses/actions/win) removes ambiguity.

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 implies when to use this tool (to mark a business as won), and the sibling list provides natural alternatives (lose/move/restore). However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, so it's at the 'implied usage' level.

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