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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the commercial model (pay-per-query), hosting, public data nature, and LGPD responsibility, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not detail output format but this is not required.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose. The legal LGPD statement is relevant for data protection context and does not feel excessive, though it could be trimmed without losing core meaning.

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?

Covers access type, payment, and data sensitivity, but misses the practical combination of input parameters (all required vs any one) and the optional 'completo' flag. No output schema is present, so a note on return structure would improve 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings. It lists the identifier fields but does not clarify formats, the contradiction between 'ou' and required status, or the optional 'completo' parameter. This leaves significant ambiguity for the AI agent.

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 action ('Consulta') and the resource (APF Rural) and lists the input identifiers (CPF, CNPJ, APF number, CAR). It effectively distinguishes the tool from the unrelated sibling tools, though the 'ou' (or) phrasing conflicts with the schema's requirement for all four identifiers.

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?

Provides useful context such as no credentials needed, prepaid credit payment, and public data access. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, relying on the platform context to imply usage.

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