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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—no mention of auth requirements, return format, pagination, or the effect of the 'completo' flag. It is not contradictory but contributes little.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise guidance. A three-word noun phrase does not provide enough structure or actionable content for an agent to confidently select and invoke the 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?

For a tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling investigation tools, the description is inadequate. It omits what the result looks like, how 'completo' changes the response, and which scenarios call for this tool over related ones.

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 explaining CNPJ and completo, but it says nothing about either parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory only in isolation; the tool description provides no additional meaning.

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 'Vínculos empregatícios' restates the tool name 'investigacao_vinculo_empregaticio' without a verb or explicit operation, making it a tautology. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like investigacao_vinculos_societarios or indicate what the investigation returns.

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, what inputs trigger different behaviors, or how it relates to alternatives such as investigacao_pessoa_juridica or investigacao_vinculos_societarios. The optional CNPJ and completo parameters are not tied to use cases.

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