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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call is free, it takes effect at once (irreversible), and it requires an e-CNPJ-signed request, which signals an authentication prerequisite the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences with the cost and the core action front-loaded, and no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers cost, immediacy, auth requirement, and where revocations can be listed. It omits what the caller receives on success/failure and whether reason is optional, leaving modest gaps.

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 75% and the schema itself explains signed_text and credential_id in detail. The description contributes the fact that the request is e-CNPJ-signed, tying to ecnpj_signature, but adds nothing about reason or the exact signed_text format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 (revokes) and resource (the credential), plus the immediacy of the effect and the signing requirement. It is distinguishable from kya_revocations (a listing tool) and kya_renew, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 phrase 'the company revokes the credential' implies the scenario (a company invalidating a credential it controls), and the mention of /v1/revocations hints at the read-side counterpart. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative such as kya_renew or kya_revocations.

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