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

With only openWorldHint=true, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add real value: the renewal requires an e-CNPJ signature that is in force (not revoked) and an ATIVA status at the Receita. It omits failure behavior, whether the prior credential is invalidated, and what the call returns.

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 with the action and duration front-loaded, then the preconditions. No wasted text; could only improve by naming lifecycle relationships.

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 mutation with sparse annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, duration, and preconditions but is silent on return values, error cases, and how it relates to kya_renew_prove. Adequate but with clear gaps for a credential-mutating operation.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents credential_id as the value returned by kya_register. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Re-issue the credential') plus a concrete scope ('for 90 more days'). This clearly separates it from initial issuance (kya_register) and the proof step (kya_renew_prove), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Implies usage through preconditions ('company signs the renewal challenge with an e-CNPJ in force... must still be ATIVA'), which tells the agent when renewal will succeed. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to kya_register/kya_renew_prove.

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