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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: payment via prepaid credit, no credentials required, data is public access, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand cost and legal implications.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by relevant operational details (cost, credentials, data source). The LGPD sentence adds legal context but is not excessive. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema, the description should describe return values or behavior, but it does not. It covers purpose, access, cost, and legal role, but omits the meaning of the 'completo' parameter and any output format. This makes it only partially complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 explain parameters. It clarifies 'Cpf' by stating 'a partir do CPF', but 'completo' (a boolean) is left completely undefined. This is a significant gap that the description does not compensate for.

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 tool's function: 'Verifica se uma pessoa é PEP ou tem parentesco com um PEP, a partir do CPF.' This provides a specific verb (verifica), resource (person via CPF), and differentiates from sibling tools which are generic (authenticate, connect, etc.).

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 implies usage context (checking PEP status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It mentions 'sem credenciais' and 'pague por consulta' but these are access details, not usage guidelines.

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