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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description says 'Mutações' (mutations), confirming a write action. However, it only says 'valida entrada' (validates entry) for do_check_in, without detailing side effects, consequences of invalid codes, idempotency, or any additional behavior. The listing of other actions not performed by this tool adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 but includes extraneous information listing other actions that are not part of this tool. It front-loads a generic 'Mutações' statement and then lists multiple actions before clarifying the flattened action. This wastes tokens and confuses the agent. A single concise sentence stating 'Performs check-in on an e-ticket using a code' would be more effective.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no additional annotations), the description should explain what check-in does, parameter usage, and potential outcomes. It only mentions that code validates entry, leaving data and account undefined, and no indication of return values or errors. The description is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 3 parameters (code, data, account) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'code' for do_check_in, and even that is only described as 'valida entrada' (validates entry), not explaining its format or purpose beyond that. The 'data' and 'account' parameters are completely unexplained. The description fails to clarify whether they are used for this action at all.

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 states multiple actions but explicitly identifies 'do_check_in (code, valida entrada)' as the flattened action. This provides a specific verb (check-in) and resource (e-ticket), though the inclusion of unrelated actions (delete, create_invitations) muddies the purpose. It does distinguish from sibling tools like 'guru_etickets_check_in' by implying a write operation, but not clearly.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'guru_etickets_write_delete_check_in' and 'guru_etickets_check_in' exist, but the description does not contrast them. There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or when not to use this tool.

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