Atividades econômicas (INSS por atividade)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only additional behavioral value is disclosing the return payload (id and descrição), which matters because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about ordering, completeness of the table, or freshness.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler; the resource is stated before the usage context, so it is front-loaded. The nested parenthetical about alíquotas do empregador makes the second half slightly harder to parse than a split sentence would be, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (id e descrição), and the annotations carry the safety and idempotency profile. What remains missing is what the tool does when called without a filter and whether the catalog is exhaustive or paginated.

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?

There is a single optional parameter, 'filtro', and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as 'Parte da descrição ou o id.' The description adds no matching semantics, case sensitivity, or behavior when the filter is omitted, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (atividades econômicas da tabela do PJe-Calc) and states exactly what is returned (id e descrição), which lets an agent tell it apart from unrelated tools. It stops short of an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the many other catalogo_* siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 parenthetical ties the catalog to a concrete destination field (contribuicaoSocial.atividadeEconomica), which implies when the lookup is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to or away from the sibling catalogo_* tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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