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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details (e.g., what data is returned, whether a full record or only PIS, any side effects). It doesn't contradict annotations, but contributes nothing extra.

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 phrase, which is concise but so under-specified that it fails to convey essential information. It's not a run-on, but it's too minimal to be useful; it lacks structure and front-loading of key details.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters (one boolean) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the 'completo' parameter, the output format, or any operational details. Compared to sibling investigation tools, this description is far too sparse.

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 has CPF (string) and completo (boolean) with zero description coverage. The description only mentions CPF implicitly via 'CPF' and says nothing about 'completo' (whether to return full details or just the PIS). No parameter semantics are 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 'PIS vinculado a um CPF' identifies the resource (PIS) and implies a query on a CPF, but it lacks an explicit verb or action. It distinguishes from siblings by name alone, not by describing the specific function clearly. It's not a tautology, but it's vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other investigacao_* siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description gives no context beyond the resource.

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