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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true anne intellectual, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, meaning the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether name search is exact or fuzzy, whether 'completo' affects results, or any limitations (e.g., no pagination). Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description fails to enrich behavioral transparency.

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, short sentence ('Busca na lista FBI Most Wanted por nome.'). It is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no fluff. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema) and the annotations that cover safety, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the behavior of 'completo' or any search nuances, and with 0% schema coverage, the agent lacks critical parameter semantics. The description is too minimal to fully support correct invocation, especially given the many similar sibling tools.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meanings, but it only mentions searching by name. It doesn't clarify what 'NOME' expects (exact, partial, case-insensitive?) or what 'completo' (boolean) controls. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema, leaving the agent guessing.

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 purpose: searching the FBI Most Wanted list by name. It uses a specific verb ('Busca' = searches) and a resource ('lista FBI Most Wanted'), which is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_interpol or compliance_ofac, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling compliance tools. It doesn't mention any specific context or exclusions. The tool name and description imply it's for FBI-related checks, but there is no explicit instruction on when this tool is appropriate versus, for example, compliance_interpol or compliance_ofac.

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