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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of '[write, altera dados]' is redundant. It does add the endpoint, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling, idempotency (already in annotations as false), or effects on existing data beyond the write nature. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 a bracketed tag, front-loading the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately brief for a straightforward create operation.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and endpoint but omits parameter semantics and any guidance on successful execution or prerequisites. The agent would have to infer the body structure from the endpoint alone, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the two parameters (body, account) at all. The endpoint hints that body is the POST payload, but there is no guidance on its format or content. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without critical parameter information.

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 action ('Cadastrar' - register/create) and the resource ('Campos extras ordens serviço' - extra fields for service orders), and includes the specific endpoint. This distinguishes it from other create tools in the sibling set which target different entities (e.g., clientes, produtos).

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 on service orders, and the sibling tools make alternative targets obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other create tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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