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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns specific data fields (função/órgão/período), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not discuss potential edge cases like CPF not found, which would be a minor gap.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Verifica se um CPF é...') and then adds the return data and use case. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, input semantics, return content, and usage context. It lacks explicit error/edge-case handling, but given the tool's simplicity, the coverage is adequate. The sibling context also helps agents understand the tool's niche.

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%, but the description explicitly mentions 'CPF' as the input and states it checks if that CPF is a PEP, thereby adding semantic meaning to the parameter. It does not provide format details (e.g., with/without punctuation), but the core meaning is clear and compensates 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 clearly states the tool verifies whether a CPF is a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and returns function/body/period. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling transparency tools (despesas, sancoes) which handle different data.

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 mentions 'Importante para compliance/KYC' which gives a clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly focused on other domains (expenses, sanctions), so the intended usage is well implied.

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