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

The description contradicts the openWorldHint annotation. openWorldHint is set to false, but the description states it consults 'bases e fontes oficiais' (official databases) for public information, meaning results depend on external real-world data. This is an annotation contradiction. Additionally, it doesn't describe return format or pagination, but the contradiction is the primary issue.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by contextual and legal information. Each sentence adds value; it's not padded. A short paragraph, easy to scan.

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 tool is fairly simple, but the lack of explanation for the 'completo' parameter creates a gap. The description also doesn't mention what the output looks like, although it implies mapping of corporate links. Given no output schema exists, the description should be more explicit about return values and the effect of 'completo'. The open-world contradiction also reduces trust.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions CPF as the input. The optional 'completo' boolean is never explained, leaving its behavior ambiguous. The description partially compensates for Cpf but not for 'completo'.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Mapeia vínculos societários de uma pessoa física para diligência antilavagem (AML) a partir do CPF.' This identifies the verb (map), the resource (corporate links of an individual via CPF), and the purpose (AML due diligence). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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?

It provides context that the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and is pay-per-query with prepaid credit. It also clarifies the data source (public official databases), which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, though none are relevant among the siblings.

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