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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond naming the operation type, such as data sources, response format, or pagination. With annotations present, the bar is met but not exceeded, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan. However, it is arguably too terse, sacrificing completeness for conciseness, though that is mitigated by the separate low scores on other dimensions.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what output the user can expect, nor does it clarify the distinction between CPF and CNPJ input, or the meaning of 'completo'. Given the sibling tools present overlapping functionality, the lack of contextual detail leaves the tool under-specified for an AI agent to correctly select and use it.

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 does not compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. The description mentions 'CPF ou CNPJ' but does not clarify that only one should be provided, nor does it explain the 'completo' boolean flag (whether it toggles full vs summary details). The parameters are left ambiguous, making correct invocation difficult.

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 the verb 'detalhamento' (detail) and specifies the resource as CPF/CNPJ, conveying a clear purpose of providing negative registrations/pendencies details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'credito_score' (score) and 'credito_protestos' (protests) by focusing on negativações, though it could be more explicit about what kind of detail (e.g., list of entries, dates, amounts).

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 alternative credit tools such as 'credito_dossie' or 'credito_scr_detalhada'. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., requiring CPF or CNPJ) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only hint is the name itself, which is insufficient.

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