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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: data is public, no credentials needed, pay-per-query, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The LGPD sentence adds legal context but is not overly verbose; overall it is efficient and earns its place.

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 simple with 3 params and no output schema. The description covers the main query intent and data nature, but lacks explanation of 'completo' and expected result format, making it incomplete for fully autonomous use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names CPF and NIS but does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter or input formats. This is a significant gap for proper invocation.

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 names the exact resource 'Auxílio Reconstrução' with required inputs CPF and NIS. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace.

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: it checks benefit receipt from CPF/NIS, is hosted without credentials, and costs prepaid credit. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but given the unrelated sibling tools, the context is sufficient.

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