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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, consumes prepaid credit, queries official bureaus, and imposes LGPD obligations on the caller. This goes well beyond 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 five sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary legal and billing context, but the legal clauses could be condensed. Still efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema and the complexity of credit data, the description covers purpose, cost, legal basis, and data sources. However, it omits parameter guidance (especially the odd both-required schema) and does not explain the 'completo' flag, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.

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 never mentions Cpf, Cnpj, or 'completo'. It leaves the agent uncertain which parameter identifies an individual vs a company, and why both CPF and CNPJ are required. The description should at least map 'pessoa física' to Cpf and 'pessoa jurídica' to Cnpj.

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 returns a complete credit dossier (registration data, risk score, outstanding issues) for individuals or companies, and explicitly says it queries credit bureaus. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) which are platform-level operations.

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 description provides clear context: it is a paid query (prepaid credit), requires a legal basis under LGPD, and the caller is responsible for purpose. It does not name alternatives, but the legal and cost constraints serve as implicit guidance on when to use it.

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