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 only mentions pagination ('Paginado') and the type of data returned, but does not disclose safety (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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—two short sentences with no filler. The main resource is front-loaded, and the pagination note is included. It earns its place by providing the core purpose and a key behavior without redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on the return format (beyond naming two fields), pagination specifics (defaults, limits), or any usage examples. An agent would not know the full response structure or how to combine parameters effectively. The description is inadequate for confident invocation in complex scenarios.

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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning—it only describes the return content (complemento, espécie), not the parameters themselves. Per the baseline for full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate since the description neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 the resource ('Unidades CNEFE de um CEP') and its scope (apartment, shop, complement, species), which is specific and not a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', so the operation is implied rather than stated. It differentiates from siblings by naming a specific CNEFE concept, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cep', 'raio', or 'vizinhanca'. The description provides no context about typical use cases, exclusions, or relationships to other tools. An agent would have to infer from the resource name alone.

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