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

The description adds the tag '[write, altera dados]', which states that the operation mutates data — but this essentially duplicates what readOnlyHint=false already conveys in the annotations. It discloses no side effects, response behavior, auth needs, or other context. There is no contradiction 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 a single compact line that front-loads the purpose, then the endpoint, then the write flag. Every token is purposeful and the structure is clean; the weakness is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no behavioral detail beyond a redundant write flag, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The agent cannot determine what payload body should carry or what query and account refer to.

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 does not explain what should go into body, query, or account. With three undocumented string parameters, the description provides the agent no assistance in constructing a valid request payload.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Criar sugestão' / create suggestion) with a resource ('Ocorrências') and includes the exact endpoint (POST /ocorrencias/adicionarsugestao), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like superlogica_ocorrencias_susgestoes or superlogica_ocorrencias_create, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_ocorrencias_susgestoes (which appears to handle suggestions) or superlogica_ocorrencias_create. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must guess the selection criteria.

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