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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the main behavioral traits (safe, read-only, idempotent). The description adds minimal context beyond the type of report ('positivo, intermediário'), but it does not mention any rate limits, authentication requirements, or output format, relying on annotations for behavioral disclosure.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise without superfluous content, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without losing efficiency.

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?

The tool has no output schema and minimal annotation coverage, so the description must explain the tool's behavior, parameters, and context. It only covers a basic purpose, leaving the agent without information on how the CPF should be formatted, what the 'completo' flag does, and what the report contains beyond 'positivo, intermediário'. This is inadequate given the tool's complexity and the many sibling tools.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'CPF' and 'completo' parameters. The 'completo' boolean is ambiguous (does it mean include all sections?), and no format for CPF is given. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess parameter meaning.

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 generates a credit report for an individual (pessoa física), specifying it is 'positivo, intermediário' (positive, intermediate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'credito_relatorio_pf_completo' (complete) and 'credito_detalhamento_negativo' (negative), though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 the alternatives. With many sibling credit report tools (e.g., 'credito_dossie', 'credito_scr', 'credito_relatorio_pf_completo'), the agent lacks context to choose the right one, making usage ambiguous.

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