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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no credentials required, prepaid credit cost, access to public official data, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, which go beyond the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by access, cost, and legal context. No wasted words, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Despite the schema lacking parameter descriptions and output schema, the description covers purpose, access method, cost, and legal obligations. It misses the 'completo' parameter and return details, but is reasonably complete for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description mentions CPF or CNPJ but does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter. Additionally, the phrase 'a partir do CPF ou CNPJ' conflicts with the schema requiring both CPF and CNPJ, creating ambiguity.

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 maps corporate links (vínculos societários) from CPF or CNPJ and shows participations and related partners, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.).

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?

Provides usage context: hosted platform, no credentials, pay per query, and accesses public data. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so the context sufficiently implies when to use it.

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