kyt_get_by_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two modes ('full' and 'lite') but doesn't explain what these modes entail (e.g., different data detail levels, performance implications, or access restrictions). It doesn't address whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese. It's appropriately brief and front-loads the core functionality. However, it could be more structured by separating the purpose from the mode explanation.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is moderately incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and mentions two modes, but lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'documentos' and 'modo' but doesn't explain what constitutes valid documents (e.g., document types, formats) or what 'full' versus 'lite' modes mean in practice. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferred from parameter names.

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 states the tool 'consulta a API KYT por documentos' (queries the KYT API by documents), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'KYT' represents and what kind of data is returned. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'kyt_get_by_email' or 'kyt_get_by_phone' beyond the input type.

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 'em modo full ou lite' (in full or lite mode), which provides some context about usage options, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kyt_get_by_email' or 'kyt_get_by_phone'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations.

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