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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the post-creation workflow but omits non-obvious behavior such as whether duplicate names are allowed, whether the call fails on quota limits, and what identifier is returned for the follow-up call.

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 with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the workflow hint follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repetitive.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The key gap is that it directs the agent to move_tour_to_client without noting that the created client's identifier is needed for that call, leaving the handoff ambiguous.

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 100%, so both parameters (name, logoUrl) are already documented in the schema with constraints. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, formats, or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Cria um cliente/marca na conta'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from list_clients or create_tour. It also names the natural follow-up sibling, move_tour_to_client, though it does not explicitly contrast with any alternative creation path.

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 second sentence gives a concrete next-step workflow ('Depois use move_tour_to_client'), which is real usage guidance beyond the definition. However, it never says when NOT to create a client, what prerequisites exist (plan limits, permissions), or how it relates to list_clients for checking duplicates.

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