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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope (benefits per CPF) but doesn't disclose details like data sources, update frequency, or whether the 'completo' parameter affects response size or latency.

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 that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient, though it could add a brief note on the 'completo' parameter without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how the 'completo' flag alters results, or any limitations. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output, more detail is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the CPF parameter implicitly ('recebidos por um CPF') but does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 retrieves social benefits received by a CPF, listing examples (Bolsa Família, BPC). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource (social benefits) and the key (CPF), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other investigacao_* tools.

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 usage for querying social benefits by CPF, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., investigacao_renda, investigacao_pis). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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