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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description's '[write, altera dados]' largely repeats that. It adds a little context by saying 'Cadastrar novo', clarifying this is an insertion rather than an update despite the 'put' in the name. No contradiction with annotations exists, but no meaningful new behavioral detail like auth needs, side effects, or response behavior is disclosed.

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 no excessive filler. However, it is under-specified: the endpoint path and write tag are useful, but the description is too sparse to count as appropriately sized for a tool with three undocumented parameters.

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 mutating operation with three generic string parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the body must contain, what query/account mean, and what the caller should expect. It provides only the basic resource and action, leaving critical invocation details missing.

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 gives no explanation of the three parameters: body, query, or account. For a create operation, 'body' is likely essential and should be described, but the description offers no parameter-level semantics at all.

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 clear action ('Cadastrar novo Responsável Legal') and a clear resource ('Responsáveis Legais'/síndicos), which is more informative than the tool name alone. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like superlogica_sindicos_post, which appears to have a very similar create purpose, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_sindicos_post, superlogica_sindicos_list, or superlogica_sindicos_put. The description merely restates the purpose and provides no preconditions, exclusions, or context about which operation is appropriate when.

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