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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds non-redundant context about prepaid credit payment, no credentials required, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, which are useful for the agent.

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 paragraph that covers purpose, access, and legal notes without excessive verbosity. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information, though some details could be tightened.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only query, and the description covers core function and access model. However, it omits explanation of the 'completo' parameter and does not describe the output format, which is significant given there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly explains CNPJ as the company identifier. The 'completo' boolean parameter is not described at all, leaving its meaning and effect unclear.

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 provides a 'credit risk indicator for a company from CNPJ' and 'consults credit information in bureaus and official bases'. This is specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from the unrelated sibling tools.

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?

It gives context for use ('for safer analyses') and specifies a legal basis requirement under LGPD, indicating when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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