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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds domain context about trademarks by holder but does not disclose additional behaviors such as whether both CPF and CNPJ can be provided or what happens for invalid inputs. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 short sentence that directly states the tool's subject matter. It is front-loaded with the key resource and scope, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 has only two string parameters and no output schema, so complexity is low. The description is sufficient to understand the core purpose, but it lacks usage guidance and parameter interaction details. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps regarding when to choose this tool over siblings and how to combine CPF/CNPJ.

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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'por titular (CPF ou CNPJ)' correctly associates both parameters with the holder identifier, which the schema alone does not convey. However, it omits details like whether both parameters can be used together, format expectations, or if at least one is required. It provides basic meaning but not full semantics.

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 noun phrase 'Marcas registradas no INPI por titular' indicating the resource (trademarks at INPI) and scope (by holder). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'inpi_marcas_busca' (search) and 'inpi_marcas_processo' (process) by focusing on the holder dimension. A verb like 'lists' would make it 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state 'use this when you have a CPF/CNPJ' or mention that general searches should use 'inpi_marcas_busca'. Given multiple related siblings, this is a notable gap.

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