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

The description includes '[write, altera dados]' which signals that the tool modifies data, but annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, beyond that, there is no additional behavioral disclosure such as required authentication, potential side effects, or validation behavior. The description merely repeats what the annotations convey without adding new 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 extremely concise, with one sentence and a short tag. It front-loads the purpose clearly and contains no unnecessary words. Every element serves a function, even if that function is minimal.

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 that creates a resource via POST, the description lacks crucial details about the required request body structure, any required fields, or the expected response. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. Additionally, the 'body' and 'account' parameters are unexplained. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the lack of parameter and response information makes it incomplete.

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 input schema has two parameters (body and account) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, their format, or how they relate to the POST request. This is a significant gap: the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of coverage, leaving the agent uncertain about what to provide.

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 (cadastrar) orçamentos via POST /api/orcamentos, distinguishing it from siblings that update, delete, list, or get orçamentos. The verb 'Cadastrar' is specific to creation, and the resource 'Orçamentos' is clear, though it could be more explicit about what an 'orçamento' is.

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 new orçamento records, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gestaoclick_orcamentos_update or gestaoclick_orcamentos_create. It provides no context on prerequisites or conditions for use, only the HTTP method and endpoint.

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