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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call is 'free' and 'does not create alerts', and it has two distinct modes. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which sits in mild tension with a preview that creates nothing; the description never reconciles this (e.g., whether the call consumes quota). No rate/limit behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the primary behavior (what it returns) is front-loaded and the negative constraint ('does not create alerts') is placed last for emphasis. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with a nested filters object and no output schema, the description covers the two modes and the non-mutating nature but omits how large a 'sample' is, how the uf/termos/filtros and cnpj paths interact (mutually exclusive or combined), and whether results are limited or paginated. 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a useful mapping by splitting behavior into two parameter-driven modes (termos/filtros vs. cnpj) and noting CNPJ suggestions are not 'turned on', but it does not add syntax or interaction detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 the operation and its two modes ('free sample of procurements by terms and filters, or editable suggestions by CNPJ') and clarifies what it is not ('does not create alerts'), which implicitly distinguishes it from create_alert. It is clear but never names the sibling it complements, so an agent must infer the create_alert relationship.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'free sample' and 'does not create alerts' phrasing suggests a dry-run before persisting via create_alert, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no routing statement pointing to create_alert/update_alert for the actual write.

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