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

The '[write, altera dados]' tag essentially restates that readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method but provides no further behavioral context such as auth requirements, failure modes, side effects, or whether creation is idempotent.

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 no filler. It packs the resource, action, endpoint, and write behavior into one line, though this efficiency comes at the cost of missing essential parameter guidance.

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 two opaque string parameters and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete to support correct invocation. It does not describe the expected body payload, account semantics, or returned data, making the tool impractical for an agent to use reliably.

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 schema has two parameters (body, account) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain either one. An agent has no idea what the 'body' string should contain or how 'account' should be used.

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 names the resource ('Recebimentos') and the action ('Cadastrar'), plus the exact HTTP endpoint (POST /api/recebimentos). This clearly identifies it as the create operation for recebimentos and differentiates it from recebimentos_get/list/update/delete siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, related read/update/delete tools, or situations where this create should be preferred or avoided.

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