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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the hosting model, absence of credentials, prepaid billing, data sources (bureaus/official bases), legal basis requirement, and LGPD controller responsibility. This is rich behavioral context and does not contradict 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then relevant operational context. No wasted words, though it is a dense paragraph rather than structured bullets.

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 simple read-only query with no output schema, the description provides substantial context: purpose, data sources, payment, legal/regulatory compliance. The main gap is parameter semantics and expected return format, but overall it covers the critical operational aspects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters, but it does not. It mentions physical vs legal entity but never maps CPF/CNPJ/completo, and the schema's requirement of both CPF and CNPJ seems inconsistent with 'ou' (or) semantics. No guidance on the optional 'completo' parameter.

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 credit score and risk analysis for individuals or legal entities, and explicitly says it queries credit bureaus and official databases. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which are unrelated.

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 gives clear usage context: it is a prepaid, credential-free credit query requiring a legal basis under LGPD. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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