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

The description mentions the POST method, indicating a mutating operation, which is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it provides no information about response structure, error handling, or side effects beyond creation. With annotations present, the description adds minimal behavioral context (the endpoint), but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and the meaning of the parameter. There is no redundant wording, and it is front-loaded with the action verb and resource.

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 create operation with a single complex parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the expected return value, authentication requirements, or any behavioral nuances. It relies entirely on the phrase 'corpo conforme a API oficial', which may not be accessible or sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description explains that the single parameter 'data' is the request body 'conforme a API oficial' (per the official API), which adds some meaning. However, since the schema provides no field constraints and description coverage is 0%, the description fully relies on external documentation without detailing any required or optional fields, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 action 'Cria' (creates) and the resource 'Pessoas' with specific examples (clients, parties, lawyers, contacts). It also specifies the HTTP method and endpoint (POST /pessoa), effectively distinguishing this from sibling tools like projuris_get_pessoa and projuris_update_pessoa.

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 its use for creating a new person record, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., fetching or updating) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is inferred from the action verb and resource, but no direct guidance is provided.

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