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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the source (INPI) and the holder-based filtering, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or response structure. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and concise, containing all essential purpose information without waste.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, only two optional params), the description is concise but lacks detail on what the response contains (e.g., list of patent numbers, dates). While it covers the basic purpose, it does not fully contextualize the expected behavior or results, which would be helpful for a comprehensive tool description.

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 states that the holder is identified by CPF or CNPJ, giving purpose to both parameters. However, it does not clarify whether both can be provided together, if one is required, or any format requirements. This provides minimal added meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: retrieving patents registered at INPI by holder (CPF or CNPJ). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like consultas_marcas (trademarks) by focusing on patents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools (e.g., consultas_marcas, consultas_cpf). There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.

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