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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: no credentials required, prepaid credit payment, public data designation, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clearer picture of operational and legal constraints.

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 reasonably concise at four sentences, covering the key operational aspects. The legal boilerplate about LGPD and data control adds length but is relevant for compliance. No redundancy or excessive detail.

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 gives a good high-level overview of the tool's purpose, access method, and data type. However, it lacks details on the output format, pagination, or what 'completo' does, and the CPF/CNPJ conflict with the schema is a gap. For a read-only query tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 compensate. It mentions CPF/CNPJ as identifiers, but says 'a partir do CPF ou CNPJ' (from CPF or CNPJ) while the schema requires both fields. It also fails to explain the optional 'completo' parameter. This is misleading and incomplete for parameter understanding.

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: 'Consulta processos de uma pessoa ou empresa no CARF a partir do CPF ou CNPJ.' It uses a specific verb (consulta), identifies the resource (processos no CARF), and the input identifiers. It is distinct from the sibling system tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which have unrelated purposes.

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 contextual usage guidance: 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' and clarifies it accesses only public information. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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