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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns complete institutional data in llms.txt form, but it does not add auth requirements, rate limits, or return-shape details beyond that.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and return scope immediately.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned: complete institutional data from llms.txt. It could be slightly fuller about what 'institutional data' includes, but the core need is covered.

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%, and the single 'company' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enum of allowed slugs. The description only says 'de uma empresa' and does not add syntax, format, or validation meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('dados institucionais completos de uma empresa'), so the agent can tell this is a per-company institutional data lookup. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_contact, get_faq, get_policies, or list_companies.

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?

Usage is only implied: retrieve a single company's institutional data when the company slug is known. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as list_companies or get_contact.

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