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

The description adds '[write, altera dados]', which makes the mutating behavior explicit beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not disclose more behavioral details such as required authentication, side effects, or validation failures, but the write nature is clear and consistent with the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains only a few meaningful fragments: resource, action, endpoint, and write intent. It is not verbose, though it may be too sparse to convey full invocation details.

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 three undocumented string parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives a clear endpoint and intent, but lacks essential details about request body format, query parameters, account usage, and expected response.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (body, query, account). The endpoint hint is not enough to tell an agent what each string parameter should contain or when each is needed.

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 ('Cadastrar novo condomínio'), the resource ('Condomínios'), and the HTTP method (POST /condominios). It also uses the word 'novo', distinguishing it from update or list operations among the sibling tools.

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 this is for creating a new condominium, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose it over alternatives like update or get. There are no exclusions or explicit alternative references, only the expected create-verb context.

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