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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Síncrono' and clarifying that the tool checks for reclaimable forgotten money, going beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 compact: one purposeful opening sentence and one sentence for input guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the low complexity, good annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, the supported entity types, and the required input pairing. It could add result-shape details, but it is not incomplete enough to hinder selection or 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by pairing cpf with data_nascimento and cnpj with data_abertura_empresa, making the parameter relationships explicit. It stops short of specifying formats such as date style or CPF/CNPJ digit masks.

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 identifies the exact resource ('Valores a Receber no Banco Central (SVR)'), making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling consultas tools by focusing on forgotten funds at the Central Bank.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance for individual vs. company cases: 'PF: informe cpf + data_nascimento. PJ: informe cnpj + data_abertura_empresa.' This directly tells the agent which parameter combinations apply to which scenario, though it does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives.

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