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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only a small semantic boundary by specifying 'positive' credit risk, but it does not disclose output format, scope changes from 'completo', or data-source caveats.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. The parenthetical '(positivo)' is an efficient discriminator, though the brevity leaves operational gaps.

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?

With two parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the one-line description is not enough for an agent to know what results to expect or how 'completo' changes the response. It also lacks guidance for choosing among closely related credit-report siblings.

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 explain CNPJ or 'completo'. The phrase 'pessoa jurídica' makes CNPJ's role inferable, and 'completo' is a self-descriptive boolean, but the description adds no concrete meaning about output completeness or default behavior.

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 conveys that the tool is about positive credit risk for legal entities, and the '(positivo)' qualifier helps distinguish it from negative-detail siblings. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly say what action the tool performs, such as retrieving or consulting a report.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling alternatives. The '(positivo)' tag implies a contrast with negative-detail tools, but the description never tells the agent when to choose this over 'credito_score', 'credito_limite_pj', or 'credito_dossie'.

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