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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: platform hosting, no credentials, prepaid per-query billing, official Brazilian data sources, non-confidential data, and LGPD data-controller responsibility. This significantly helps an agent set expectations and assess side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds operational, legal, and cost context in three compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the good purpose and behavioral context, the tool is complex: 15 optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description only says it returns 'o NIRE' and does not cover query construction, expected response shape, pagination, or edge cases. This leaves the agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.

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 15 undocumented parameters. It mentions categories like 'razão social, objeto, capital, endereço' but does not explain formats, allowed values, date-range syntax, boolean expectations, or how filters combine. It adds only general semantic hints, not sufficient parameter guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Pesquisa avançada de empresas na JUCESP por razão social, objeto, capital, endereço e outros filtros, retornando o NIRE.' It clearly states what the tool does and the unique outcome (NIRE), and none of the sibling tools overlap with this search functionality.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—advanced company searches by multiple filters—and adds operational constraints such as 'sem credenciais' and 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is necessary.

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