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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that the call only assembles the list (no requests are dispatched), when the external requests actually start, and the billing model – 1 credit per issued certificate, charged only on issuance, with uploaded documents free. These are exactly the side-effect and cost facts an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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?

It is compact and information-dense with no filler sentences; every clause conveys a rule, a default, or a cost. It is slightly packed, stacking purpose, parameter semantics, sequencing, defaults and billing into a single paragraph, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions (match_documents), side effects (list only, fetching deferred), defaults, and cost. What it omits is the return value (e.g., whether a diligence id comes back) and any permission or limit constraints, which matters somewhat for a creation call.

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 67% and the description meaningfully fills gaps: certidoes are ids from list_catalog, documents are titles of anything outside the catalog (contrato social, balanço, alvará), and the semantics of omitting both are spelled out. The template parameter's interaction is only partly covered ("certidoes e documents somam a ela" is in the schema, not the description), and name/cnpjs are unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource – it opens a diligence for a set of CNPJs with a document list – and explicitly distinguishes it from fetch_certidoes ("Só monta a lista: os pedidos aos órgãos começam quando você chama fetch_certidoes"). The purpose is unambiguous, though the opening sentence is followed by a dense mix of behavioral detail that dilutes the front-loading slightly.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use rules: run match_documents first and confirm the list with the user if there is a checklist, pass fetch=true only if the user already asked to fetch, and if neither certidoes nor documents is given, all catalog certificates are included. Alternatives (fetch_certidoes, match_documents) are named with the conditions that select them.

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