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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. Description adds context: data is public access, paid per query, no credentials, LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond annotation defaults and clarifies data privacy 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?

Description is a single cohesive paragraph with the core purpose upfront. Sentences are relevant, covering purpose, access, payment, and data nature. Slightly verbose on LGPD, but generally efficient.

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?

Despite covering access/payment/privacy, it omits explanation of the 'completo' parameter and the conflicting requirement of both CPF and CNPJ. Without an output schema, it also doesn't describe what results look like, leaving significant gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 description must explain parameters. It mentions CPF or CNPJ but doesn't clarify that schema requires both, nor does it explain the 'completo' boolean. This creates ambiguity about required inputs.

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 verifies administrative impropriety and ineligibility (CNIA) using CPF or CNPJ, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are authentication/marketplace utilities.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: to check CNIA records. States it requires no credentials and is paid via prepaid credit, offering operational guidance. Lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, but no direct sibling alternative exists.

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