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

The description claims 'Excluindo conta' and '[write, altera dados]', which indicate a mutating, effectively destructive operation, while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction, forcing a score of 1 despite the write tag adding some behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the domain and action, includes the HTTP endpoint, and adds a write marker. No redundant content.

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 3-parameter write/delete operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too sparse: it omits which identifier identifies the account, the request body/query semantics, prerequisites, and side effects. An agent cannot call this reliably.

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?

Input schema has three string parameters (body, query, account) with no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any of them, leaving an agent unable to determine what to pass.

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 action ('Excluindo conta num plano de contas') and resource ('plano de contas'), and includes the HTTP endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling planocontas operations (list, post, put) and from other delete 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative should be selected (e.g., update vs delete account). The only implication is that this is the delete operation among the planocontas siblings.

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