Submeter defesa de infração MED

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, aligning with the description's implication of a state-modifying action. The description adds context that the submission is 'complementar' and does not substitute ticket follow-up, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential usage guidance without any fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is mostly complete given the tool's complexity, good schema, and annotations. It explains the tool's role and limitations. It could explicitly mention the relationship to 'med_list' or prerequisites like needing a ticket, but overall it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the action: 'Envia uma defesa para uma infração específica do Mecanismo Especial de Devolução.' It specifies the resource (infração MED) and the action (defense submission). Among siblings like 'med_list', this tool is distinct for submitting defenses.

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 description includes explicit guidance: 'Use para complementar a análise; o envio não substitui o acompanhamento e documentos solicitados por ticket.' This tells when to use it (as a complement) and what it does not replace (ticket processes). It does not name alternative tools but provides sufficient context.

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