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

The description includes '[write, altera dados]' (write, alters data), which does communicate mutation, but the annotations already set readOnlyHint=false. No additional transparency is provided about required authentication (implicit via account) or the exact behavior of creating an order. Since this is a write operation, more clarity on side effects or prerequisites would be valuable.

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 short and to the point, but it's under-specified. It includes the endpoint and a write flag, but is so terse that it lacks essential context. It's concise in word count but not structurally front-loaded with the most critical info (what the tool does).

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 POST endpoint with two parameters, the description provides almost no guidance: no request format, no parameter requirements, no response expectations. The output schema is absent, and the description does nothing to fill that gap. The tool is essentially unusable without external API knowledge.

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% for the 'account' and 'body' parameters. The description gives no detail about what 'account' or 'body' should contain. Given that 'body' is likely the payload for the POST request, the description fails to explain that or any structure. The tool requires compensated explanation, but it doesn't provide any.

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 it creates service orders ('Cadastrar' = register/create) and specifies the HTTP endpoint POST /api/ordens_servicos. It distinguishes from siblings by the specific resource 'ordens_servicos' and the action 'create' in the name, but the description itself doesn't elaborate on what a service order is or what creating it entails. It's clear but minimal.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the other many create tools (e.g., orcamentos_create, vendas_create). The description just states the action and endpoint without any context or alternatives. The user must infer usage from the resource name.

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