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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational context: hosted platform, no credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is public (not private/confidential), and LGPD responsibilities for the client. This goes beyond the annotations and addresses authentication, cost, and legal compliance.

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, three-sentence paragraph that leads with the main purpose, then adds practical and legal context. Each sentence carries meaningful information without fluff. The legal and payment details add a bit of density but are relevant to usage.

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?

While the description provides strong context about the tool's purpose, access model, payment, and data classification, it fails to explain the required parameters or expected return values. Without parameter semantics, an agent cannot reliably construct a valid request, making the description incomplete despite its thorough operational context.

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?

The input schema has three parameters (Nome, Sobrenome, completo) with zero description coverage, and the tool description gives no explanation of these parameters. The description mentions checking a name but does not specify how to structure the input, what 'completo' means, or any formatting requirements. This is a critical gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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: 'Verifica se um nome consta na lista de mais procurados do FBI' (checks if a name appears on the FBI's most wanted list), with a specific use case in compliance and AML. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which are generic platform utilities.

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 context on when to use the tool ('para diligência de compliance e AML') and clarifies operational aspects (no credentials, prepaid credit, public data only). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools are clearly different in function, making the intended usage evident.

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