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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool requires no credentials, is pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and deals with public data under LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the operational and legal behavior.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and operational context in the second. It is efficiently written with no redundant 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, access method, billing, and data classification, which is good given the annotations. But it fails to explain the 'completo' parameter or what the response contains, leaving notable gaps for a tool with no 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 description explains that the CIB identifies the rural property for the query, giving meaning to the required parameter. However, it completely omits the optional 'completo' boolean parameter, leaving its purpose undocumented. With zero schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 consults the CAFIR registry using the property's CIB, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the generic platform siblings by specifying the domain and input.

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 context for when to use the tool: to query public rural property data, with clear guidance on payment and credentials. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but given the siblings are unrelated (auth, marketplace, etc.), the context is sufficient. It lacks explicit exclusions or 'use instead' references.

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