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

The description adds '[write, altera dados]' which merely echoes the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It provides no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, side effects, or what happens on duplicate creation. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 a single concise sentence with the purpose and endpoint, avoiding unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key info, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the request body structure, account usage, or response format, and the 0% schema coverage leaves the agent without critical information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions the tool is for 'campos extras' (extra fields), offering no explanation of what 'body' or 'account' contain or how they are used. This is insufficient given 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 clearly states the tool creates extra fields for budgets (Cadastrar) and provides the endpoint. It specifies the resource (orçamentos) and action (create), distinguishing it from other atributos_*_create siblings by naming the specific entity.

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 usage for creating extra fields of budgets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, or context about prerequisites. The sibling tool list includes many other create tools, but no differentiation is given beyond the name.

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