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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the São Paulo scope without contradicting those hints. It does not add further behavioral context such as required authentication, output behavior, or limitations, so it stays at the baseline given the strong 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 with no filler and front-loads the core subject and jurisdiction. It is concise, though slightly over-compressed because it omits a verb and details that would improve clarity without much length.

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 tool with no output schema, no required parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it does not state what appears in the returned history, how 'completo' changes the request, or response parameters. The SP scope and tax-id inputs are useful, but the tool is under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies that CPF or CNPJ are the identifying inputs, but it does not explain their expected format, whether one is mandatory, or what the 'completo' boolean controls. This leaves a meaningful portion of the parameter surface unexplained.

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 ('histórico veicular') and jurisdiction ('SP'), and the 'por CPF ou CNPJ' qualifier helps distinguish it from sibling tools that search by plate or property. However, it lacks a verb such as 'consultar' or 'retornar', so the action is implicit 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 provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like investigacao_propriedade_veicular or investigacao_veiculo_placa, nor any exclusions. 'Por CPF ou CNPJ' implies an input requirement but not a usage scenario or selection criterion.

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