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

Annotations show destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description only says 'register' without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or behavior such as whether it overwrites existing reports or requires specific authentication. No contradictions with annotations, but minimal added context.

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 very short (one sentence plus parameter list) and front-loaded with the action. It is efficient but could benefit from a clearer structure separating required from optional, and it omits crucial details.

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 no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and no nested objects, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the 'data' parameter should look like, what the output is, or any behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error cases). The provided parameter hints do not cover all schema parameters.

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 two parameters (data, account) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions fields (agendamento_id, laudo_base64) that presumably go inside the 'data' string, but does not explain the format or the 'account' parameter. This adds some meaning but is incomplete and potentially confusing as the described fields are not schema 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 states 'Register a new medical/lab report in Feegow' which clearly indicates the action (register) and resource (report). It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_medical_report_list (listing) and feegow_medical_report_search (searching). However, the mismatch between described parameters (agendamento_id, laudo_base64) and schema parameters (data, account) slightly reduces clarity.

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 lists required and optional parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context like prerequisites or post-conditions. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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