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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about public-access data, prepaid credit payment, no credentials, and LGPD responsibility, going beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 front-loaded with the main action and delivers relevant operational context (payment, access level, legal responsibility) in four sentences. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds value.

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 description covers purpose, self-consultation scope, payment model, and data-public nature. However, with no output schema and six parameters, it leaves parameter formats and the exact response structure unspecified, which lowers completeness.

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%, and the description only mentions 'CPF e nome' as inputs, omitting the required NomeMae, NomePai, DataNascimento, and optional completo parameters. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 function with a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('certidão de antecedentes criminais na Polícia Federal'), and explicitly scopes it to the holder consulting their own record. This distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use: 'Feito para o titular consultar os próprios antecedentes' indicates self-service only. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the restriction narrows usage sufficiently.

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