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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely extra traits: the company-owned-only scope constraint and a data-freshness caveat ('Check source dates and update status'), which annotations cannot express.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the lookup keys before the filters and the scope caveat; no filler. The closing clause ('Check source dates and update status') is terse to the point of ambiguity, which is a small deduction rather than bloat.

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 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core lookup and filters but omits any mention of pagination/cursor behavior, the 1-50 page-size limit, or the uf+municipio pairing rule. The schema carries these, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 every parameter including cursor, limite, areaMin/areaMax, situacao and the ref hint for municipio is already documented. The description only restates the filter categories in prose (area, type, category, status) without adding format or constraint meaning, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Brazilian CNO construction works') and enumerates the three lookup keys (12-digit CNO number, company CNPJ, city+state). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the generic 'search' sibling in the tool list, so an agent must infer which one applies.

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 implies its context (construction-work lookups) and adds a scope rule ('Only company-owned records are included'), which is useful. But it never says when to choose this over the sibling 'search', nor states exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring uf together with municipio.

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