CRM login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that the output is a token and that it is temporary, which is useful. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., session creation), error behavior, or how the token should be used in subsequent calls. This is adequate for a simple login tool but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise, single-sentence, and front-loads the action, input, and output. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 low-complexity authentication tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the basic call flow. However, it could clarify whether the token should be sent as a header and any prerequisites. The missing details do not break usability but would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should enrich parameter understanding. The text mentions 'usuario/senha', which merely restates the parameter names without adding format, length, or validation rules. Since the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not meaningfully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving it at an average level.

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 'Login no CRM' with 'usuario/senha' and the output 'token temporário', unambiguously identifying this as an authentication tool that exchanges credentials for a temporary token. It uses a specific verb and resource and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like crm_consultar_atividades or pedido_criar_v2.

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 implies the tool is used for logging in and obtaining a token, but it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to other tools (e.g., 'call first to authenticate') or provide any exclusions. Given there is no sibling login tool, the usage context is self-evident from the name and description, but it lacks explicit guidance.

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