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

Annotations provide all false hints, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool creates a negotiation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects beyond the basic write operation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and required input. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning its place as being concise.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks explanation of the optional 'account' parameter and what the response looks like. It covers the core purpose but misses details that could help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 must compensate. It mentions that subscriber_code is required, but does not explain the 'account' parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving the optional parameter undocumented.

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 verb 'cria' (creates), the resource 'negociação (recuperação) de uma assinatura em atraso', and the required input subscriber_code. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like reactivate or cancel by explicitly mentioning negotiation for overdue subscriptions.

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 says 'requires subscriber_code' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reactivate or cancel). Usage is implied by the context of overdue subscriptions, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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