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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool queries by CNPJ or CPF, which is useful but not a behavioral trait beyond what the schema and annotations imply. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or potential variations in response, but with the annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant wording, and the key information—agency and identifier types—is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple lookup tool, the description is sufficient to understand its scope and distinguish it from siblings. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to detail return values for such a straightforward query. It covers the essential context (SUFRAMA, CNPJ/CPF) and aligns with the tool's simplicity.

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 has no descriptions for 'cpf' and 'cnpj' (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does indicate that the tool works by CNPJ or CPF, giving some meaning to the parameters. However, it does not clarify whether both can be provided, if one is sufficient, or any expected format, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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: providing the registration status at SUFRAMA, a specific Brazilian agency, using either CNPJ or CPF. It uses a specific verb (consultas/consults) and resource (SUFRAMA), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like consultas_cpf and consultas_sintegra_sp by naming the agency.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other alternatives. It only states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like consultas_sintegra_rj. The context of the name suggests it is for SUFRAMA, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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