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

Annotations already indicate write=true (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds the tag '[write, altera dados]' which is redundant with the annotation. However, no additional behavioral context is provided, such as what fields are required, what creation entails (e.g., requires previous customer setup), or potential side effects. With readOnlyHint=false, the description doesn't need to state it's a write, so the tag adds little value.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, but the addition of the redundant '[write, altera dados]' tag is unnecessary clutter given the annotations already convey this, so a small penalty is applied.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should provide substantial guidance on how to invoke it (e.g., required fields in body, example structure, or prerequisite steps). It lacks any such detail, making it incomplete for a functional operation.

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 meaning or format of the 'body' or 'account' parameters. 'account' likely identifies the account/company, but this is not stated. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, leaving the agent guessing from the parameter names alone.

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 service invoices via POST to the specified endpoint, and the "[write, altera dados]" tag indicates it modifies data. It is distinguishable from the many sibling tools because it includes 'servicos' and 'create' in the name, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives.

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 creation of service invoices but gives no guidance on when to use this over other create tools (e.g., notas_fiscais_produtos_create) or when to prefer other related actions (e.g., emitir). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided, but the resource is clear enough for basic usage.

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