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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description does not add further detail (e.g., rate limits, authentication requirements) but also does not contradict annotations. Minimal extra disclosure is provided.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without verbosity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It provides sufficient context for the tool's basic operation, though it lacks details on prerequisites or edge cases. Overall, it adequately covers the essential context for a simple query 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?

The description mentions only 'CPF/nome' (CPF and NOME) among the six schema parameters. It does not explain the purpose of NOMEMAE, NOMEPAI, DATANASCIMENTO, or 'completo', leaving most parameters underdocumented. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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: retrieving criminal records from the Federal Police by CPF or name. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other compliance checks (e.g., civil, ANTT, etc.).

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 (for criminal record checks) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. It lacks guidance on criteria like when to use PF vs other compliance tools, though the name provides some context.

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