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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent behavior, and the description adds crucial context: public access data (not private), no credentials required, prepaid credit model, and LGPD controller responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies legal/safety aspects.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main purpose. It includes relevant context (pricing, public data, LGPD), though the legal sentence adds length; still appropriately sized.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, access type, and legal responsibility. But it omits the 'completo' parameter behavior and any return format, so it's not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions CPF as the query key but fails to explain the 'completo' boolean parameter or the output format, leaving half the input surface undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb 'Consolida' and identifies the resource 'benefícios sociais recebidos por uma pessoa física a partir do CPF', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling meta-tools. It also states it consults public access data, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: hosted by the platform, no credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and LGPD responsibility. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling tools are unrelated.

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