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 goes beyond annotations by disclosing the payment model ('pague por consulta'), the absence of credential requirements, and the legal/public nature of the data (LGPD note). These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in the structured metadata.

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 and front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence covers hosting, credentials, and cost, while the third provides legal context. No obvious filler, though the LGPD clause could have been shortened without losing 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?

For a simple lookup tool, the description explains what the tool does, the data source, and cost, while annotations cover safety. However, the parameter schema is not fully explained (especially 'completo'), and the CPF/CNPJ OR/AND conflict remains unresolved. There is no output schema, so the return value is also unspecified, leaving notable 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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains that CPF or CNPJ are used as query identifiers, but it says 'ou' while the schema requires both 'Cpf' and 'Cnpj'—a direct ambiguity. The optional 'completo' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unknown.

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 ('Verifica') and a clear resource: checking whether an employer appears on the forced labor/slavery list using CPF or CNPJ. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by stating the exact domain and input identifiers.

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 useful operational context: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid via prepaid credit. It also clarifies that the data is public and official, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.

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