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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: no credentials required, pay-per-query billing, public access data, and LGPD compliance responsibilities ('O cliente é o controlador dos dados'). This goes beyond the annotations by explaining billing and legal aspects, though it does not cover potential rate limits or response handling.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add useful context (hosting, credentials, billing, data privacy), but some legal phrasing (LGPD, 'O cliente é o controlador dos dados') could be seen as verbose relative to the tool's technical scope. Overall, it remains efficient without redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the expected return value. It does not describe what 'situação' includes (e.g., status, registration details, legal documents) or how the 'completo' parameter affects results. The description covers data access and legal framing but leaves a significant gap in the response semantics, making it incomplete for an agent deciding on invocation details.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It only names 'CNPJ' as the input source but does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter, nor does it specify CNPJ formatting or what 'completo' controls. The parameter meaning is largely left to inference from the parameter name alone.

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: 'Consulta a situação de uma empresa na Suframa (Zona Franca de Manaus) a partir do CNPJ' - a specific verb ('Consulta') + resource ('empresa na Suframa') + input method ('a partir do CNPJ'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate', 'connect', and 'report_bug', which serve different platform functions.

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 operational context: 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' and clarifies the data is public. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied need for prepaid credit. The usage is contextually implied, not expressly guided.

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