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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '[write, altera dados]' tag is consistent with them, so there is no contradiction. The description adds the endpoint and reinforces the mutating nature, but discloses nothing beyond that — no mention of duplicate behavior, required account context, or what a successful creation returns.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and action, then adds the endpoint and a write indicator. Every element earns its place with no filler; it is appropriately minimal for the information it conveys.

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 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent would know 'what' the tool does but not 'how' to use it — request body shape, required fields, and response behavior are all missing, making a correct first call unlikely without external documentation.

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 compensate: body, query, and account are all opaque strings. An agent cannot infer what fields body should contain, what query parameters are accepted, or how account selects the tenant. With zero parameter documentation in both schema and description, this is a critical gap.

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 ('Cadastrar nova unidade' — register a new unit) against a clear resource and pins it to the HTTP endpoint (POST /unidades/post). Among siblings, the 'nova unidade' framing implicitly distinguishes it from superlogica_unidades_list, superlogica_unidades_post_update, and superlogica_unidades_delete, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that updates belong in superlogica_unidades_post_update, that reads belong in superlogica_unidades_list, or any prerequisites such as authenticating or selecting an account before creating a unit.

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