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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial extra behavioral context: hosted by platform, no authentication, per-query cost, and LGPD compliance responsibility. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent actionable expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses three sentences to add payment, auth, and legal context. Each sentence contributes value; no redundant filler, though the LGPD detail could be seen as secondary.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers key operational aspects: purpose, access method, cost, and data sensitivity. The missing documentation for 'completo' prevents a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 mentions CPF as the identifier but completely omits the optional 'completo' boolean parameter, leaving agents without guidance on its meaning. This is a significant gap.

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 ('Quadro Geral de Inabilitados do Banco Central'), with the input (CPF) clearly stated. It is unmistakably distinct from the unrelated platform-level 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 description provides clear operational context: no credentials required, prepaid credit payment, and public access. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are platform utilities, so the use case is sufficiently implicit.

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