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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether it aggregates data or if it's expensive. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds no extra value. Per rubric, with annotations, we credit for adding context; it doesn't, so a 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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured with param details. But it's 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?

No output schema, and the description gives no indication of what the complete dossier contains, nor does it explain the drei parameter semantics. It's minimal but not complete for a tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters (CPF, CNPJ, completo). The description does not explain these parameters at all. It doesn't clarify that CPF is for individuals, CNPJ for companies, or what 'completo' means. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Dossiê de crédito completo de um CPF ou CNPJ.' clearly states the tool provides a complete credit dossier for a CPF or CNPJ. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like credito_relatorio_pf_completo or credito_scr, which may also provide comprehensive reports. The purpose is clear for a specific resource, but lacks differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like credito_protestos or credito_score. It's a bare statement with no usage context.

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