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

The description explicitly tags the operation as '[write, altera dados]', which adds human-readable confirmation of the mutation behavior already implied by readOnlyHint=false. It also names the POST method. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond creating, auth requirements, or any reversible/irreversible details.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the operation, endpoint, and behavior tag with no filler or repetition. Every segment adds 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?

The tool has three undocumented parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no parameter semantics, no usage context, and no return-value expectations. For a new agent, calling this correctly would require guessing the body format. It is too sparse relative to the many sibling cobrança tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain the three string parameters (body, query, account). It only implies via the endpoint that body likely carries the cobrança payload, but it never explains what each parameter is for, how they interact, or what format is expected.

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 states a specific verb ('Cadastrar') and resource ('nova cobrança') and includes the HTTP endpoint (POST /cobranca). It clearly identifies this as a create operation for charges, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling cobrança tools like update, excluir, or estornar.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over its many siblings. The description does not state conditions, prerequisites, or mention alternatives such as superlogica_cobranca_update or superlogica_cobranca_list. The only context is the 'Receitas' category label.

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