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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable context: it accesses only public data (not private/secret), outlines LGPD responsibilities for the customer, and mentions the payment model. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting 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 three sentences and each sentence carries relevant information (purpose, access modality, legal/privacy context). It is compact and front-loaded with the core function, though a bit longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Covers the essential context (purpose, payment, public data, LGPD) but omits any indication of what the query returns (e.g., result format, whether 'completo' changes output). With no output schema, such information would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that the basics suffice.

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 mentions CPF as the lookup key. The optional 'completo' parameter is left completely unexplained, and there is no detail on its expected values or effect on the result. This is a notable 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Verifica indicadores de compliance de uma pessoa para o setor de apostas a partir do CPF' (checks compliance indicators for a person for the betting sector from the CPF). It specifies the verb, resource, and input, and is distinct from unrelated sibling tools.

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?

Provides practical usage context: hosted by the platform, no credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and that it consults public-access information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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