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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, consistent with a write operation. The description adds '[write, altera dados]' which is redundant with the annotations.offer no additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, limitations, rate limits, data validation). Since annotations already convey the write nature, this adds no 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 short – one line with the action and endpoint. It is concise but lacks any structure. It does front-load the main verb and resource, but it is too brief to be truly efficient; there is no part that adds value beyond the name. It is not bloated, so it receives a middle score.

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 has 2 params with no schema descriptionsative assistance and no context about the product creation process (required fields, data format, error handling, authentication), the description is severely inadequate. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without guessing what the parameters should contain. With zero schema descriptions, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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?

There are 2 parameters, but schema_description_coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description does not explain what 'body' or 'account' mean. The description only says 'create product' with no mention of the parameters. The agent cannot infer what to put in the body or what account refers to. This is a major gap.

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 action (criar produto) and the HTTP method (POST) but it essentially restates the tool name 'products_create'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'products_delete' and 'products_update' only through the verb, which is already in the name. It lacks scope details (e.g., what types of products, any required fields) and doesn't go beyond the tool name's inherent meaning.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include create, update, delete, get, list – but the description doesn't mention when to create vs. update, or any prerequisites like account validity or authentication. There's no when/when-not guidance.

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