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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that explicit holder authorization is required, which is not captured by the annotations.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the key authorization constraint. It contains no redundant or vague filler, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite good annotations, the description is too sparse for the tool's actual invocation needs: no parameter semantics, no output format, and no explicit comparison to related sibling tools. The authorization note helps, but overall the description leaves substantial gaps for correct selection and use.

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 the meanings of CPF, CNPJ, or the 'completo' boolean. Without any parameter guidance, an agent cannot determine whether to supply CPF, CNPJ, both, or how 'completo' affects the returned summary.

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 identifies the resource as the Central Bank SCR credit history summary and indicates it provides a summary-level view, which differentiates it from the sibling credito_scr_detalhada. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', so it is slightly below a fully explicit purpose statement.

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 phrase 'Resumo do SCR' implies summary-level usage and contrasts with the more detailed sibling tools, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over credito_scr_detalhada or related reports. The authorization requirement is mentioned but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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