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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description isn't needed for that. It adds a bit of context ('por nome') but does not disclose details like case sensitivity, fuzzy matching, or whether 'completo' controls output verbosity. Adequate but minimal for a read-only search tool.

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, short sentence that is immediately scannable and to the point. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, this read-only search tool would benefit from clarifying query behavior (e.g., partial vs exact match, date format) and the meaning of 'completo'. The description is too thin to fully support an agent invoking this 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. It only mentions 'nome' generically, but parameters include NOME, SOBRENOME, DATANASCIMENTO, and completo. No explanation of field combinations, formats, or semantics is provided, failing to clarify the schema's placeholder-like names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Busca' = searches) and resource ('lista da INTERPOL') and specifies the search criterion ('por nome'). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from tools targeting other lists, though it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools or exclusions as in the high example.

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 prefer this tool over the many similar compliance_* siblings. The description does not cover use cases, limitations, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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