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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that it requires prepaid credit, no platform credentials, and that data is non-confidential, plus LGPD compliance. This adds practical behavioral context not in 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 single dense paragraph that mixes purpose, hosting details, payment, and legal obligations. It is not overly long but is not front-loaded with the most critical info (purpose) and includes extra legalese that could be trimmed.

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 query tool, it covers key facts (source, payments, credentials, data sensitivity) but omits details about return format, response contents, or how the credit system works. The lack of output schema makes this more noticeable.

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 (nome, registro) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain these parameters or their usage, leaving the agent without additional meaning. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states it is for 'consulta em fonte oficial' and specifically mentions consulting official Brazilian sources, clearly indicating a read/query operation. It is distinct from siblings like authenticate and marketplace, though the verb 'consultar' is not explicitly written but implied. The purpose is clear enough.

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 (hosted by platform, pay-per-query) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. It implies use for checking official data but offers no comparison to other tools.

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