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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions the pay-per-query model, that data access is public (not private/sensitive), and that the client is the data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences, each adding relevant information: purpose, access model, data publicness, and LGPD responsibility. It is front-loaded with the main function and avoids redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well structured.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or what 'completo' does. It does not describe the response format, error behavior, or the effect of the optional parameter. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly.

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 and NIS are the identifying inputs, but it does not clarify the 'completo' boolean parameter or any formatting requirements (e.g., punctuation). This leaves the optional parameter semantically unexplained.

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 function with a specific verb ('Verifica') and resource (recebimento do BPC), and specifies the key inputs (CPF and NIS). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are generic (authenticate, connect, etc.) and unrelated to BPC consultation.

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 for when to use the tool: it checks BPC receipt status for a beneficiary, requires prepaid credits, and has no credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and sibling tools are not relevant choices.

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