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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is hosted without credentials, paid per query, and consults official credit bureaus. It also clarifies the client's responsibility under LGPD. While it does not describe the response format or rate limits, the additional payment and host details go beyond the structured 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 a concise three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does; subsequent sentences add payment, legal, and privacy context. It is appropriately compact without unnecessary filler, though it could be more structured for readability.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, payment model, and legal basis. However, it omits parameter-specific guidance (especially the unusual required Cpf/Cnpj pair and the 'completo' flag) and does not describe what the response contains. Given these gaps, it is adequate but not fully complete for reliable invocation.

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 should compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. It mentions 'CPF ou CNPJ' generically, but the schema requires both Cpf and Cnpj, creating confusion about whether one or both must be provided. The 'completo' boolean parameter is entirely unexplained. This incomplete param semantics undermines correct invocation despite the overall purpose being clear.

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 tool's function: to query the situation of a CPF or CNPJ in the CADIN registry of São Paulo's Treasury. It specifies the exact resource (CADIN) and distinct scope, which differentiates it from the platform-level sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.). Even without an explicit verb, the noun 'Situação' combined with the tool name 'consultar' makes 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?

The description provides clear context for use: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid for with prepaid credit. It also states a prerequisite (legal basis under LGPD). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the siblings are generic platform utilities. The legal and payment conditions give enough context to guide usage.

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