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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: batch cap of 10 and the billing rule that invalid-format entries are not charged. But it says nothing about what the score means, error handling for valid-but-unknown CNPJs, output shape, or rate limits — significant gaps for a paid scoring endpoint.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and scope come first, pricing second. Every clause carries information — no restated name, no filler.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers input limits and cost but leaves the return value completely undefined. An agent knows how to call it but not what it will receive, which is a meaningful gap when no output schema exists.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as comma-separated CNPJs up to 10, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes the batch limit and adds the invalid-format billing nuance, but no format or delimiter detail beyond the schema.

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/resource ('Health/risk score') and a precise scope ('up to 10 Brazilian CNPJs in one call'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular get_company_score sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling or any other alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 parenthetical '(supplier/customer list triage)' gives one concrete use case, which is better than nothing. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_company_score or get_company, and lists no exclusions or prerequisites.

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