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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., return format, required combos, auth) beyond the purpose. It does not contradict annotations, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It earns its place, though it could include more detail 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter usage. It fails to clarify the EMAIL/CELULAR combo logic or the 'completo' boolean, leaving the agent guessing about invocation. Return values are also unaddressed.

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 adds zero information about the three parameters (EMAIL, CELULAR, completo) — no types, meanings, or relationships. The agent is left guessing what 'completo' means or whether both EMAIL and CELULAR should be provided.

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 purpose: discovering a person behind a phone and/or email (reverse enrichment). The verb 'descobre' (discovers) plus the explicit resource (phone/email) distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific domains (e.g., CNH, obito, localizacao).

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 use when you have a phone/email and want to identify a person, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. Since siblings are all investigation types, the description's 'e/ou' gives some usage hint but no exclusions or contrasts.

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