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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no platform credentials required, prepaid per-query billing, official Brazilian data sources, non-confidential data, and LGPD data controller responsibilities.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by essential operational and legal context. It is a single coherent paragraph without unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 read-only query with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers source, confidentiality, auth, and billing. However, it omits expected output format, error possibilities, and any validation or formatting details for the parameters.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain 'inscricao_predial' or 'municipio' beyond what their names imply. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage with format, examples, or further parameter detail.

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 identifies the tool as a fire tax consultation for Rio de Janeiro state ('Bombeiros RJ: Taxa de Incêndio, consulta em fonte oficial'). It specifies the resource (fire tax) and the action (consulta), and it is clearly distinguished from the generic sibling tools like authenticate and connect.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description focuses on platform hosting, payment, and LGPD compliance rather than usage context or prerequisite conditions.

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