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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: no authentication is needed, each query consumes prepaid credit, and the data is public access. It also explains the data privacy role under LGPD, which is useful for agent decision-making.

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 few clear sentences in Portuguese, front-loaded with the main function. It includes relevant details about cost, credentials, and data publicness. The LGPD sentence is somewhat tangential but still pertinent for compliance. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured for its length.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, target user, data nature, access model, and cost, which is good context. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the certificate content or a status). This is a moderate gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It names only CPF, RG, UF, and nome, but the schema requires NomeMae, DataNascimento, and includes an optional 'completo' flag, which are not explained. This partial coverage leaves the agent without guidance on required fields or the meaning of 'completo'.

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 explicitly states it queries the criminal record certificate ('certidão de antecedentes criminais') from the Civil Police, using CPF, RG, UF, and name. It also clarifies the intended user (the record holder), which distinguishes it from background-check tools and clearly differentiates it from sibling platform utilities.

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 provides clear usage context: it is intended for the data subject to consult their own records, it requires no credentials but charges prepaid credit, and it imposes LGPD responsibilities on the client. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or reference alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, so the guidance is adequate.

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