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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain types (clientes, contrários, terceiros), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, or whether the query object supports arbitrary filters.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource immediately, though it is perhaps too concise to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 six parameters, a nested query object, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It explains what the tool returns semantically but leaves pagination, filter behavior, and the flexible query object unexplained.

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 provides no meaning for any of the six parameters. While names like cpf and cnpj are somewhat self-explanatory, the query object, page, page_size, and nome parameters receive no explanatory value beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Lista pessoas" (lists people), and clarifies the scope with parenthetical categories: clients, opposing parties, and third parties. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling easyjur_list_pessoas_grupo, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as easyjur_get_pessoa or easyjur_list_pessoas_grupo. The description states what it does but provides no selection criteria, exclusions, or comparative context.

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