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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds limited context: the data source (CNIA) and the nature of the records (convictions and ineligibility). It does not cover response format, empty results, or any special lookup behavior, but within annotated safety bounds this is acceptable.

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 sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to defining the tool's lookup scope and data source. It is appropriately concise.

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?

For a simple, read-only lookup tool with strong annotations, the description conveys the core purpose and source. However, it is incomplete regarding the optional 'completo' parameter and output expectations, and the presence of many similar sibling tools means more explicit guidance would improve completeness.

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 compensate. It does clarify that CPF and CNPJ are identifiers used for searching, which adds meaning over bare string fields. However, the 'completo' boolean parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap in semantic coverage.

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 resource (CNIA) and the purpose: convictions for administrative improbity and ineligibility by CPF/CNPJ. It implicitly communicates a search/lookup operation and distinguishes itself from compliance siblings by naming a specific data source and subject matter, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 given on when to use this tool vs the many compliance_* alternatives. The description only says the lookup is by CPF/CNPJ, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about choosing between related tools.

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