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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the substitution rule (SP certificates swapped for local TJ/SEFAZ documents outside SP, only for that company) and describes exactly what is returned (items, adjustments, suggested model). It omits whether the operation is strictly read-only or any rate limits, keeping it below 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the single dense paragraph with nested parentheticals (the 'onde não buscamos' aside) is harder to scan than it needs to be. Most content earns its place, but the the structure could be tighter.

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?

With no output schema and only 50% param coverage, the description steps in to explain the return structure (items, adjustments, suggested template) and the scope of adjustments. It is largely complete, though it leaves the read-only nature and optionality of parameters implicit.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description compensates: it explains that cnpjs drives the per-company adjustments ('para quais cnpjs') and that name drives the suggested template ('modelo sugerido pelo nome da diligência'). That adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 identifies the resource: ready-made due diligence templates already adjusted to each CNPJ's registered location (TRT/TRF regions), returning items, per-location adjustments and a suggested template. It distinguishes the output shape well. It does not state the verb 'list' explicitly, but the intent is 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?

It gives explicit timing: 'Use antes de create_diligence com template', naming the sibling that follows. That is a clear use condition tied to a specific alternative. It does not state when-not to use it, so it stops short of 5.

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