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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the holder filtering, which is already reflected in the params. No additional behaviors such as return format, pagination, or limitations are disclosed.

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 in Portuguese that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous text. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple with two optional parameters, and annotations cover safety. However, there is no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of patents with details), but it does not. This is a notable gap for an agent needing to use the tool effectively.

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. It provides meaning by indicating that CPF and CNPJ are holder identifiers and that either can be used (as implied by 'ou'). However, it does not clarify whether both can be provided together, their formats, or any constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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 identifies the resource as patents registered at INPI and the scope as filtering by holder (CPF or CNPJ), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling trademark tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'search', making the action slightly implied rather than explicit.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve patents by holder, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools, leaving the usage context to inference.

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