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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the tool consumes prepaid credit per query, requires no platform credentials, and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This billing and compliance information is not present in the annotations.

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 core purpose. Sentences are short and each adds relevant context, though the LGPD clause is a bit dense for a search tool. It does not waste words on repetitive content.

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 tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, pricing, data scope, and compliance. However, it omits any explanation of the parameters, especially 'safe', and does not describe what the result of a query looks like, which would be expected without an output schema.

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 two parameters (query, safe) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'consulta' which hints at the query parameter, but it does not explain either parameter, especially 'safe', which remains ambiguous. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 opens with 'Buscador: Google, consulta em fonte oficial' and later clarifies it queries information from official Brazilian sources and agencies. This specifies a clear verb+resource (query official sources) and differentiates it from the sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace.

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 useful context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid via prepaid credit, and accesses the same data available to citizens. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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