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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, so the write nature is implied. The description adds critical context about public action and confirmation necessity, which goes beyond the annotations. Bulk support is also disclosed. No contradictions found.

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: purpose, default and parameter guidance, and bulk support. The warning is embedded naturally. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important info.

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 four params and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, public/private distinction, and bulk execution. It doesn't specify return values, but that's not strictly necessary. The warning about public action is a nice touch for a write tool.

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 explains the 'privada' parameter (default public, true for private) and the bulk capability via 'ids'. It does not elaborate on 'id' vs 'ids' relationship or the exact format of 'mensagem', but covers the key semantic elements.

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 'Responde' and resource 'reclamação' with explicit scope ('da sua empresa'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like reclameaqui_listar_reclamacoes and reclameaqui_reclamacao. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: default is public response, privada=true for internal message, and warns about the public nature of the action ('confirme o texto antes de enviar'). It also mentions bulk support. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context is sufficiently directed.

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