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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data is public, no authentication is needed, there is a cost per query, and the client is the data controller under LGPD. This significantly exceeds the annotation information and has no contradiction.

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 concise three-sentence paragraph. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the other sentences add essential access and legal context without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes new information.

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, and the description covers purpose, access model, cost, and legal context. However, it lacks any mention of the response format or what the output contains, and the unexplained 'completo' parameter leaves a gap. The schema required-parameter mismatch also adds confusion.

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 explains that CPF or CNPJ are the lookup identifiers, but it doesn't clarify the 'completo' parameter at all. Moreover, it says 'CPF ou CNPJ' while the schema marks both as required, creating ambiguity about whether one or both must be supplied.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('verifica se consta') and resource ('Quadro Geral de Proibidos do Banco Central'), and identifies the input identifiers (CPF/CNPJ). It is easily distinguishable from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 useful context for when to use the tool: it requires no credentials, costs prepaid credit, accesses public data, and has LGPD responsibilities. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so this is acceptable.

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