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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that it queries 'cadastro' data. It fails to explain what the 'completo' parameter does, the shape of responses, or any potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, data coverage). With a low bar set by annotations, it still falls short by omitting non-obvious behavior.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and identifiers. Every word earns its place; there is no bloat.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the 'completo' parameter, how to select this tool over alternatives like compliance_cvm_sancionadores, or what the response contains. The description carries the full burden here and leaves too many gaps for safe autonomous use.

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%. The description hints at CPF and CNPJ as identifiers but does not explain their formats, mutual exclusivity, or the 'completo' boolean parameter. Since there are three parameters and none are described in the schema, the description should compensate but only covers two superficially. No details on required/optional behavior are given.

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 queries CVM (Brazilian SEC) registration records by CPF/CNPJ. It uses a specific resource (CVM cadastro) and identifier types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compliance_cvm_sancionadores (sanctioned entities). However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb, so it could be clearer about what it does (e.g., 'Check registration status').

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 on when to use this tool versus the many compliance siblings. It does not mention that it is for registration checks (as opposed to sanctions or debits), nor does it offer alternatives or exclusions. The agent must infer context from the name alone, which is risky given the large tool family.

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