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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context: it states the registration is auditable, records who declared and when (in the audit log), and notes it's free. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't elaborate on potential side effects like overwriting or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core function, then gives usage instructions, then audit details and cost. It's three sentences, each with a distinct purpose, and no filler. Slightly longer than minimalist but appropriate for the complexity.

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 6 parameters, 1 enum, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what is registered, when to use it, and the audit trail. It also references a related external parameter (`autorizacao_titular_scr=true`) for re-running the dossiê. It's reasonably complete for a simple consent registration tool, though it doesn't describe return values or error cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It explains the core parameters 'finalidade' and 'base_legal' (explicitly named), and 'autorizacao_titular' via the declaration phrase. However, it does not mention 'cpf', 'cnpj', or 'observacao', which remain unexplained. It provides partial meaning but not full coverage.

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 purpose: to register, in an auditable manner (LGPD), the purpose and legal basis of an investigation, plus a user declaration of authorization for confidential data. It explicitly names the resource (consent registration) and differentiates from siblings by referencing `capivara_dossie` and the conditional use case (when using protected data).

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Chame ANTES do `capivara_dossie` quando for usar dados sob sigilo' and instructs to re-run the dossiê with `autorizacao_titular_scr=true` afterward. It also notes it's 'quando aplicável' and mentions it's free, providing clear context and alternatives.

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