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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses payment requirements, data classification (non-confidential), and LGPD responsibilities, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 somewhat redundant (e.g., repeated references to official sources) and lacks clear structure, but it remains understandable and not excessively lengthy.

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 complex parameter list and no output schema, the description does not explain required fields, return format, or practical usage details beyond basic legal/payment notes. It is insufficient for a user to effectively call the 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?

The schema has 10 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description makes no mention of them. Abbreviations like 'rg' and 'cin_cpf' are unexplained, failing to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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's purpose: querying criminal records (Antecedentes Criminais) from official sources in São Paulo. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by its specific domain.

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?

It implies usage context (consultation from official sources, prepaid credit required) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough given the sibling set.

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