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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds '[write, altera dados]' to signal data mutation. However, it provides no additional behavioral details such as required authorization, potential side effects, or confirmation requirements. The description supplements but does not enrich beyond the annotation flags.

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: a one-sentence summary plus a compact bracket note. It front-loads the resource and action immediately, with no fluff. Every word contributes to purpose and basic behavior.

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's complexity (a create operation with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the 'body' or what the 'account' parameter refers to, nor what happens after creation. The absence of parameter documentation makes this barely viable.

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 and account) with zero description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or their format. The description only says the endpoint, not what 'body' should contain or how 'account' is used. This is a significant gap for an agent to use correctly.

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 performs a creation operation ('Cadastrar') on 'Serviços' via POST /api/servicos, which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like gestaoclick_servicos_list or gestaoclick_servicos_update. It could be slightly clearer that 'Serviços' is a resource category, but the verb+resource is sufficient.

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 a service record, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context such as needing an authenticated account. It provides no guidance on when not to use it or exclusions.

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