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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds operational details beyond that: payment via prepaid credit, no platform credentials, the data being non-confidential, and the client's LGPD responsibility as data controller. This enriches the safety and compliance profile.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes either purpose, operational context, or legal disclaimer. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., merging the legal note), but it is well-structured and not excessively long.

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?

With only two string parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it queries, how access works, data sensitivity, and compliance. It does not specify response format, but given no output schema and simple query tool, this is acceptable. Missing rate limits or pagination are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what CPF/CNPJ are or how they are used. It only lists them implicitly in the translation ('consulta' suggesting lookup), but there is no guidance on which identifier to use or their purpose. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the tool performs a consultation (consulta) of the CEIS registry of ineligible and suspended companies from official sources, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace. The target resource and operation are unambiguous.

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?

It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but it provides clear context: hosted on platform, no credentials required, paid per query, and data is public. This effectively sets expectations for when it's appropriate, though it could be more explicit about scenarios like checking a company's status.

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