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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds value by noting that `data` can be an object or array, enabling batch creation, but does not disclose response behavior, authentication prerequisites, or side effects beyond the endpoint.

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, direct sentence that includes the endpoint and the key parameter clarification. No filler or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for a simple create endpoint.

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?

For a simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the data parameter's batch capability. However, it omits expected return values, the meaning of `account`, and any error or validation behavior, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent to invoke correctly in all contexts.

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 clarifies that `data` can be an object or array of clients, which is helpful, but the `account` parameter is left unexplained, and the internal structure of a 'cliente' is not detailed.

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 'Inclui cliente(s) (POST /v1/clientes)' clearly identifies the creation of clients and the target resource/endpoint. It is distinct from siblings like mercos_update_cliente and mercos_list_clientes, though the verb 'Inclui' is slightly less explicit than 'creates.'

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 a create operation via the verb 'Inclui' and the POST endpoint, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or list. The distinction is largely inferred from the tool name and sibling list rather than stated.

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