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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the tool is hosted on the platform, no credentials are needed, it queries bureaus and official databases, and it involves prepaid credit costs. It also notes LGPD compliance responsibilities for the customer. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting 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 compact block of three sentences, each conveying useful information: the resource queried, operational details (hosting, payment, credentials), and legal compliance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. A slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability, but it remains concise and efficient.

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 the moderate complexity of a credit consultation tool, the description provides useful context about data sources, cost, and legal basis, but it lacks information about the return format or how the 'completo' parameter alters the response. With no output schema, the absence of return-value details leaves some ambiguity. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool with complete expectations.

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 parameters explicitly. It hints that CPF and CNPJ correspond to physical and legal persons, respectively, but it does not clarify why both are required in the schema nor what the 'completo' boolean controls. This is a significant gap for a low-coverage schema, as the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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's function: it consults negative credit information (outstanding debts) for individuals or legal entities, listing specific categories like protests, lawsuits, and recoveries. The verb 'Consulta' and resource 'informação de crédito' are specific, and the scope is well-defined. Since sibling tools are unrelated platform utilities (authenticate, marketplace, etc.), there is no ambiguity.

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 usage context: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and incurs a prepaid credit charge per consultation. It also specifies a legal basis requirement (e.g., risk analysis requested by the holder), which indicates when use is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions when this tool should not be used, though none of the sibling tools are comparable.

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