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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds no behavioral context such as response shape, no-result behavior, or data coverage. It only restates the domain content and does not go beyond the structured 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 very short and free of filler, but it is a terse noun-phrase fragment rather than a complete, self-contained sentence. Under-specification limits the value of the brevity.

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?

Given that the tool has no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, the description should explain what CEAF is, what 'completo' controls, and how to interpret results. It provides none of that, so it is not adequate for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 'por CPF', which aligns with the CPF property, but it does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for both parameters; it fails to do so.

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 identifies the data source (CEAF), its scope (expulsões da administração federal), and the key input (CPF), which distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'consulta' or 'verifica', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a clear tool action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling compliance tools, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The only implicit usage hint is the CPF parameter in the description.

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