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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the effect is physical and anyone standing beside the car can then open it, and the car may be woken as a side effect. It stops short of noting auth requirements or what happens if the vehicle is already unlocked.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler: action, safety constraint, side effect. The core operation is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Behavioral and safety context is adequate and there is no output schema to explain, but for a physical-world mutation tool with two completely undocumented parameters the definition leaves a real gap. Adding what account/veiculos control would make it complete.

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% for both parameters (account, veiculos), and the description never mentions them, so an agent gets no guidance on which account is used or what the veiculos list means (single VIN, multiple cars, or default). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('DESTRAVA as portas do carro') and adds the scope detail that the effect is physical and immediate. The verb is unambiguously the inverse of the sibling tesla_travar, but neither sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Só use quando o dono pedir explicitamente' gives a clear precondition and implicitly excludes casual/automatic use. It does not name an alternative tool or describe what to do instead when the owner has not asked, so it falls short of explicit when-not/alternatives routing.

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