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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that it's a 'complete (positive)' report, without disclosing return format, data scope, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations but also provides minimal additional context.

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, short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words. However, while appropriately brief, it omits critical details, but conciseness itself is not penalized for under-specification.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return expectations, or any distinctions from similar tools. Given the sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently select and use this tool.

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%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does not explain what the 'CPF' format should be, what the 'completo' boolean controls, or whether either parameter is required. The description's mention of 'completo' is ambiguous and does not clarify the parameter.

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 indicates the tool provides a complete (positive) credit report for an individual (CPF). It distinguishes from siblings like 'credito_detalhamento_negativo' which focuses on negative details. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'Generates') and could be more explicit about the output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as 'credito_relatorio_pf_mais' or 'credito_score'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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