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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the operation's effect and the allow_writes prerequisite. It does not disclose partial failure behavior, idempotency implications, return values, or reversibility, so it adds only limited behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the action, states the target resource, and includes the key prerequisite. There is no filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description covers the core action and a critical authorization condition, which is sufficient for a simple operation. However, it lacks information about expected outcomes, error conditions, or how processing multiple IDs behaves, leaving some operational ambiguity for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that the required 'ids' parameter refers to CT-e IDs and supports one or more IDs, but it does not explain the optional 'account' or 'empresa_id' fields. This adds meaningful detail for only one of three parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Averba' and explains it as 'registra o seguro de carga' for 'um ou mais CT-e (por id)'. This makes the tool's purpose clear and differentiates it from sibling CT-e operations such as cancelar, emitir, and excluir.

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 states the permission requirement 'Exige allow_writes' and implies the use case of registering cargo insurance on CT-e documents. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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