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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: no credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and that the data is public access, not private. This enriches the readOnly/idempotent hints provided in annotations.

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, but includes some legal boilerplate (LGPD) that slightly dilutes the core message. Still, it's reasonably concise.

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 description covers purpose, authentication, cost, and data sensitivity, but lacks detail on the 'completo' parameter and the return format. Given the absence of an output schema, more information would improve completeness.

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?

The description explains the CNPJ parameter is the lookup key, but provides no explanation for the 'completo' boolean parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify all parameters.

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 retrieves indicators (sanctions, agreements, contracts) for a company on the Transparency Portal using CNPJ, which is a specific verb+resource and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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 implies usage context (querying company indicators via CNPJ) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, reducing the need, but no explicit guidance is given.

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