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 covered. The description adds the useful authorization requirement, but does not describe what happens without authorization, what data is returned, or other runtime behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for what it directly says, though it would benefit from more parameter or usage detail elsewhere.

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 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and many related siblings, one sentence is insufficient. It does not clarify the distinction between detailed and standard SCR, what data appears in the report, or how to correctly select CPF/CNPJ/completo.

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 CPF, CNPJ, or 'completo'. The property names give some hints, but the agent is left without knowing whether one identifier is required, how they interact, or what 'completo' actually controls.

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 identifies the tool as a 'SCR detalhado do Banco Central' and adds a key condition (holder authorization). This gives a usable sense of purpose and 'detalhado' loosely distinguishes it from the sibling credito_scr, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'obtém' or 'consulta'.

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?

'Exige autorização do titular' is a prerequisite/context signal, implying the tool should only be used when holder authorization exists. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of credito_scr or the other sibling credit report tools.

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