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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's 'Verifica' (checks) wording. The description adds no behavioral detail about 'completo', invalid CPF handling, or what the result contains, but it also does not contradict the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it highly 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 tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'completo' does, what the response looks like, or how this compares to compliance_pep_parentescos, leaving important context missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the description only explains that a CPF is checked. The 'completo' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond its bare name. This is a significant gap.

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 ('Verifica') and names the resource ('CPF' being a PEP), making the core purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling compliance_pep_parentescos, but the phrasing strongly implies checking the person's own PEP 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: to verify whether a CPF is a PEP. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to the many sibling compliance tools, especially compliance_pep_parentescos.

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