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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about the data source (Civil Police criminal records) but nothing about return format, response structure, or limitations. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides moderate additional context without contradictions.

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 single, front-loaded sentence conveying the core purpose efficiently. No filler or redundant text, though it could be slightly expanded to cover more parameters without becoming verbose.

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?

With eight parameters, no output schema, and no descriptions of return values or behavioral nuances, the description is too thin. It fails to explain required vs optional parameters, expected input formats, or what the response contains, making it incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions CPF, name, and UF as query methods. The remaining five parameters (RG, GENERO, NOMEMAE, completo, DATANASCIMENTO) are unexplained, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding of their meaning or usage.

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 retrieves criminal records specifically from the Civil Police (Polícia Civil) and indicates it can be queried by CPF, name, or UF. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like compliance_antecedentes_pf (Federal Police), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by listing queryable fields (CPF, name, UF) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like compliance_antecedentes_pf or other compliance tools. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, so it's only implied rather than explicit.

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