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

The description states '[write, altera dados]' which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint: false) but adds minimal extra context. It does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or consequences beyond the write nature, and it repeats what annotations already imply.

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 brief, consisting of a single sentence. While it is concise and front-loaded with the essential action and endpoint, it omits crucial information about parameters and usage. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, so it is not a top 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 this is a create operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the payload structure, the account context, or any expected response. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based solely on the description and schema.

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 zero description coverage for both parameters (body and account), and the description does not mention either parameter at all. There is no explanation of what body should contain or what account refers to, leaving the agent entirely in the dark about how to invoke the API.

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 ('Cadastrar' = create) and the target resource (Clientes), and specifies the HTTP endpoint (POST /api/clientes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get, list, update, and delete for the same resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or situations where this create operation is appropriate or inappropriate. There is no reference to other tools or exclusion criteria.

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