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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds information about payment and data privacy (LGPD) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, error handling, or response structure. This provides some additional context beyond 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 relatively short and avoids unnecessary detail, though it repeats the word 'consulta' multiple times. It is structured as a few sentences and is not overly verbose.

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 does not explain what the query returns (no output schema is provided) or what kind of data is included in the response. It mentions official sources but lacks details on the expected result, making it incomplete for a clear understanding.

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 input schema includes parameters (uf, municipio, categoria, crf, nome) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings ambiguous.

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 indicates it is a query tool for official Brazilian sources, but does not specify what type of registration data is queried (e.g., pharmacy professionals, establishments). It clearly mentions 'consulta' but lacks specificity about the resource being accessed.

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 that the tool is paid (pre-paid credit) and does not require platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on typical use cases or conditions is given.

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