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 clear. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as data freshness, privacy restrictions, or output formatting. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 concise, a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It efficiently lists the key data points. However, it could be improved by including usage context on the parameters, but the conciseness itself is well executed.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description provides a good overview of the returned data, but it omits critical usage details such as how to specify the CPF (format), the effect of 'completo', and any prerequisites like authentication. Given the moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 for the parameters. It implies the main parameter is the CPF, and 'completo' likely controls the comprehensiveness of the output telegraphically. However, the description does not explain the difference between a complete and incomplete query, nor does it clarify what the boolean 'completo' changes. It provides partial compensation but leaves key parameter semantics unclear.

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 purpose: returning complete registration data for a CPF, listing specific data fields (name, contact, address, income, salary range). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like investigacao_renda and investigacao_pessoa_juridica by focusing on individual taxpayer registration data.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over investigacao_renda or investigacao_pessoa_juridica, nor does it indicate prerequisites like authentication or needed input format.

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