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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, non-open-world write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no ticket is created and no external message is dispatched, so the side effect is confined to a local association. It stops short of stating permission requirements or reversibility.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the positive action is front-loaded ahead of the negative constraints. Nothing is repeated from title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a modest four-parameter linking tool the description plus well-described schema fields cover what an agent needs to invoke it. The main residual gap is auth/permission expectations, which the schema only hints at via 'a credencial determina a loja'.

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 75%, with source, ticketRef, and instanceId all carrying inline descriptions, so the schema largely does the work. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning (no format, source semantics, or supportCode guidance), so it sits at the baseline rather than adding value.

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+resource pair ('Associa uma referência de chamado à tentativa da loja autorizada') and immediately bounds it with what it does not do. The agent can tell it apart from the diagnose_* and generate_label siblings because it is clearly a linking/association operation, though no sibling is named 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?

'Não cria chamado nem envia mensagens externas' gives partial when-not guidance by excluding two adjacent behaviors, but it never says when this tool should be chosen over the diagnose_* or recover_* siblings, nor what prerequisites (e.g. an existing supportCode) must hold.

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