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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds some context about the query scope (by CPF/CNPJ, fleet), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result limitations, response shape, or any constraints on the input combination.

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 phrase with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the main subject and lookup key, but the lack of a verb makes it slightly elliptical; despite that, it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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?

This is a simple lookup tool with rich annotations, but the description leaves important usage details unaddressed: the role of 'completo', how CPF and CNPJ interact, and when to prefer this tool over related vehicle investigation tools. With no output schema present, the description needed to carry more weight than it does.

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, but it only explains that CPF/CNPJ are identifiers for the search. The 'completo' boolean parameter is completely unexplained, and there is no guidance on whether CPF or CNPJ is required, whether they are mutually exclusive, or what 'completo' changes about the results.

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 that the tool returns vehicles registered under a person or company, searched by CPF/CNPJ. It also implies a fleet-level scope, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like investigacao_veiculo_placa. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a specific verb such as 'list' or 'search', so it stops short of a fully explicit purpose statement.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as investigacao_veiculo_placa or investigacao_historico_veicular. There is no mention of when a CPF/CNPJ-based property lookup is appropriate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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