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

The annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict these. It adds no extra behavioral context (like requiring authentication or returning a boolean), but given the annotations cover the main concerns, transparency is adequate.

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, concise sentence with no redundant or unnecessary details. It is perfectly sized for the information provided.

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?

The description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, list, details) nor explain the 'completo' parameter. Without an output schema, this omission leaves users guessing about the tool's full behavior and expected results.

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?

The schema provides only property names with no descriptions. The description mentions 'por CNPJ/CPF' which clarifies the purpose of the two identifier parameters, but it does not explain the 'completo' parameter or clarify whether CPF, CNPJ, or both are required. This leaves significant ambiguity in parameter usage.

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 specific purpose: checking an employer against a forced labor list using CPF/CNPJ. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling compliance tools that target other lists.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternative compliance tools. However, the tool name and description make it clear that it is for forced labor checks, which is sufficient context for a user familiar with the sibling tools. But since explicit alternatives or when-to-use guidance is absent, it does not fully meet the 'explicit' criterion.

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