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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: no credentials are needed, it is pay-per-consultation with prepaid credit, and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently conveys the product name, alternative phrasing, payment model, and legal obligations. Slightly dense but each sentence adds value.

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?

The core purpose, payment model, and legal constraints are covered, but the description does not explain the 'completo' parameter or the response format (no output schema exists). For a prototype-like tool with minimal parameters, this is acceptable but leaves clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps CPF to 'pessoa física' and CNPJ to 'pessoa jurídica', but it does not mention the optional 'completo' parameter at all. The agent would not understand the meaning or impact of 'completo'.

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 provides a summary of credit operations in the SCR of the Central Bank, and explicitly says 'Consulta informação de crédito', identifying the action. It distinguishes itself from generic platform sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace) by focusing on a specific credit bureau query.

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 gives clear context for when to use: it is a paid, credential-free consultation of credit information, and it explicitly states a legal basis is required (e.g., risk analysis requested by the data subject). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but siblings are not competing credit tools, so the context is sufficient.

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