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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond stating the action; it does not mention limitations, potential failures, or any procedural details, but for a simple lookup, this is acceptable given the annotation context.

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, which is efficient, but it lacks structure (no breakdown of inputs vs outputs) and does not front-load key usage hints. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 no parameter descriptions, the tool description is insufficient for an agent to know what inputs to provide or what the result will look like. The description only states the high-level purpose, leaving the agent to guess how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has no descriptions for CPF, DOB, NAME, SURNAME, and the description only mentions output fields (name, address, phone, email) without linking them to inputs. This offers minimal guidance on how parameters are used or which are required, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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: locating a person via name, address, phone, or email. It uses a specific verb ('Localização') and resource ('pessoa'), and the listed fields help define the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling investigation tools, though the unique focus on contact details sets it apart implicitly.

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 conveys the context of use (locating a person's details) without ambiguity. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'investigacao_pessoa_juridica' or 'investigacao_propriedade_veicular', but the clear purpose makes the distinction obvious.

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