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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that the query is based on CPF/CNPJ/RNTRC, but does not disclose whether inputs are alternatives, how 'completo' behaves, or what the response contains. It does not contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded Portuguese sentence communicates the tool's domain, target, and query identifiers with no waste. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is appropriate for a small compliance-lookup tool.

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 description covers the main purpose and safety profile, and the annotations make the read-only nature clear. However, with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and an unexplained 'completo' parameter, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's bare property names. It adds meaning by naming CPF, CNPJ, and RNTRC as query keys, but it does not explain the fourth parameter 'completo', nor does it clarify if any identifier is required or how they relate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as checking ANTT carrier regularity and explicitly names the query keys (CPF/CNPJ/RNTRC). It distinguishes itself from sibling compliance tools through the specific ANTT/transportadora domain, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'consulta' or 'verifica'.

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 domain ('Regularidade de transportadora na ANTT') lets an agent infer when to use this tool: when checking Brazilian land carrier compliance status with ANTT. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to the many sibling compliance tools.

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