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 'rede' (network) behavior and AML context, but it does not disclose output format, depth, or whether results are filtered or complete. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the key resource and purpose. Every word adds meaning and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description is enough to understand the general intent but not enough to confidently invoke it: the 'completo' parameter behavior and the expected output are undocumented, and there is no output schema to compensate. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only clarifies the CPF parameter through 'por CPF'. The 'completo' boolean is entirely unexplained, leaving a critical parameter undocumented.

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 ('rede de vínculos societários'), the input scope ('por CPF'), and the purpose ('prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro'), making the tool's function clear. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retorna' or 'consulta' and does not directly contrast with the sibling investigacao_vinculos_societarios.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as investigacao_vinculos_societarios or investigacao_beneficiario_final. The AML context and CPF parameter imply a use case, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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