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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the required fields and references to official docs, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as idempotency implications or rate limits.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value: the action, the parameter details, and a reference to documentation. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., created receivable ID). It provides good input context but omits return value information, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'data' parameter as a JSON string with specific required fields, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, the 'account' parameter is not described, leaving a gap in coverage.

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 creates a receivable account ('conta a receber') using the API endpoint 'IncluirContaReceber'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like omie_create_payable and omie_create_customer, which handle different resources.

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 provides context by listing required fields and referencing sibling tools for customer IDs and checking accounts, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or include any when-not scenarios.

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