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

The description labels the operation as '[write, altera dados]', which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false but merely restates what the annotations already convey. It does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing related data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded with the resource and action, but it contains redundancy: the domain segment and the phrase 'num plano de contas' repeat the same idea, and '[write, altera dados]' duplicates annotation information. It is compact, yet not every element earns its place.

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 write operation with three opaque string parameters and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It gives no payload guidance, no example, no prerequisites, and no response expectations, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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 any of the three parameters (body, query, account). An agent cannot determine what values belong in each field, what format body should take, or how account relates to the target plan. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Nova conta') and resource ('plano de contas'), so an agent can tell this tool creates a new chart-of-accounts entry. It also identifies the underlying endpoint. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling planocontas_postconta, so it is not fully sibling-aware.

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 provides domain context ('Condomínios / Plano de contas') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as planocontas_postconta, planocontas_deleteconta, or the list variants. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion statements.

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