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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: payment requirement, lack of credentials, public data source, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the safety hints already provided, though it does not describe response format or error cases.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is stated first, followed by hosting/payment details, then data privacy considerations. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a simple tool but misses some key aspects: there is no output schema, so the description should mention what the tool returns, and the 'completo' parameter remains undefined. These are notable gaps given the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description explains that the tool queries using CNPJ, giving meaning to the main required parameter. However, it does not explain the 'completo' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves a gap in understanding the optional parameter's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verifica') and clearly names the resource ('Acordo de Leniência sob a Lei Anticorrupção a partir do CNPJ'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'report_bug'.

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 provides clear context: hosted on the platform, no credentials required, and paid via prepaid credit. It also states the data is public access, implying no special authorization is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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