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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which indicate a write operation but not destructive. The description explicitly notes '[write, altera dados]', confirming data mutation. However, it does not disclose specifics like whether the operation is idempotent, required authentication, or potential side effects on related data. Given the annotations already convey write behavior, the description adds little beyond the endpoint.

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 brief, with a single sentence and a bracket marker. It is front-loaded with the action and endpoint. It wastes no words, but it misses critical information about parameters and usage, so it is concise but incomplete. The structure is adequate for a simple tool, but the lack of detail reduces its effectiveness.

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?

The tool has two parameters with zero documentation in both schema and description, making it incomplete for correct invocation. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what a successful creation returns. The simplicity of a POST endpoint is acknowledged, but the missing parameter semantics and response details leave significant gaps.

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%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention 'body' or 'account' at all. The 'body' parameter is a string, but its format or content is undocumented. 'account' likely refers to an account identifier, but no detail is provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Cadastrar') and the endpoint (POST /api/atributos_financeiros), which clearly indicates creating financial extra fields. It is distinct from sibling operations (get/list/update/delete) by the verb 'Cadastrar'. However, it does not fully explain what 'atributos financeiros' are, making it somewhat vague for users unfamiliar with the domain.

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 provides the HTTP method and endpoint, which implies usage context. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the update or list versions). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, but the endpoint reference gives some direction. Sibling tools follow a clear create/read/update/delete pattern, so the action verb partly conveys usage.

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