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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the data is public and not private/confidential, explains the payment model (prepaid credit per consultation), and notes the client's data controller responsibility under LGPD. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, with no contradictions.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds relevant information: purpose, access/payment model, and legal/privacy context. It is not overly verbose, though the third sentence could be considered slightly redundant in emphasizing public access.

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 tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It fails to clarify the distinction between reference and competence dates, the format of date strings, and the expected response. Key invocation details are missing.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'NIS' and 'mês/ano de referência', but does not explain the difference between MesReferencia/AnoReferencia and MesCompetencia/AnoCompetencia, nor the meaning of the 'completo' boolean parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all required parameters.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Verifica o recebimento do Bolsa Família por um beneficiário a partir do NIS e do mês/ano de referência.' It explicitly names the input (NIS and reference month/year) and the resource (Bolsa Família receipt), and it is clearly distinct from the provided sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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 contextual usage guidance: it states the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, is paid per consultation with prepaid credit, and accesses public data only. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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