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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses payment requirements, credential-free access, public data status, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. These are significant behavioral traits that help the agent understand cost, legal obligations, and data sensitivity.

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, each conveying necessary information: purpose, hosting/payment, and data privacy/legal context. There is no redundancy or fluff, and it front-loads the primary purpose.

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 captures the key functional and contextual aspects (purpose, access, cost, legal framing) for a simple 2-parameter read-only query. However, it doesn't describe the output format or the behavior of the 'completo' parameter, which would further improve completeness for an agent.

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 schema has zero description coverage for parameters, and the description only references CNPJ as the query key without explaining its format or the meaning of the 'completo' boolean. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving parameters under-specified.

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 uses the verb 'Consulta' (queries) with a specific resource 'vínculos empregatícios associados a uma empresa' and identifies the key input 'CNPJ.' This clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by stating exactly what data it retrieves.

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 use: it queries public employment data from a CNPJ, requires no credentials, and involves prepaid credits. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling list contains no similar data-query tools, so the guidance is implicitly clear.

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