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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, implying this is a creation tool. The description states it 'cria' (creates) which aligns with the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as automatic movements or duplicate creation risks, but annotations already cover the basic safety profile, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, using two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and required fields, and all information is relevant. Every word earns its place.

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 (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage (required fields, optional process linkage) but does not explain optional parameters like 'data', 'hora_inicio', etc. However, the schema provides parameter names, and the core behavior is sufficiently described for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool. A score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description names two required parameters (tipo, id_advogado) and explains the purpose of 'processo' (to link to a case for movement recording). This adds significant value beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of per-parameter descriptions, but it does not cover all parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Cria item de agenda' (Creates an agenda item), and specifies required fields. It also explains the optional linkage to a process ('Vincule a um processo...') which distinguishes it from related list/get 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 explicitly states when to use the tool by listing required parameters ('Obrigatórios: tipo, id_advogado') and provides a conditional use case ('Vincule a um processo... para registrar uma movimentação/atualização'). This gives clear context without mentioning alternatives, but the alternatives are obvious from sibling tools like easyjur_get_agenda or easyjur_list_agenda.

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