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

Annotations already clearly indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal value by repeating the write nature with '[write, altera dados]'. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate, though slightly lower because the description does not provide additional behavioral context.

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 very brief (one sentence), but it is also under-specified. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the lack of parameter details makes it less concise in utility. It is not verbose, but it misses critical information, so it earns a middle score.

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?

Given the tool is a POST operation with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context. The endpoint is mentioned, but the body structure and account requirements are not explained. For a creation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain what the 'body' or 'account' parameters should contain. The parameter names are generic, and without any description, the agent has no idea how to construct a valid request. This is a critical gap; even a basic template for the body would be valuable.

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 'Criar lead' (create lead) and includes the HTTP endpoint POST /api/v1/leads. It is distinct from other tools like datacrazy_leads_list, datacrazy_leads_get, and datacrazy_leads_patch, as it explicitly indicates creation. The inclusion of the endpoint adds clarity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only indicates it performs a write operation. There is no mention of prerequisites like authentication, context for creating a lead, or when to prefer this over other write tools like datacrazy_businesses_create.

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