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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states no platform credentials are needed, there is a per-query cost, the data is non-confidential, and the client is responsible for legal compliance under LGPD. It aligns with the readOnlyHint and does not contradict any annotation.

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 moderately concise but repeats 'consulta' and 'fonte oficial' multiple times and includes legal jargon. It could be more streamlined, but it is not excessively 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 elaborate on the output format or fields returned, nor does it mention error scenarios or rate limits. While it covers payment and legal aspects, the lack of output schema or description leaves a significant gap for users to understand what data the tool returns.

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 parameter schema provides no descriptions, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'uf', 'nome', or 'inscricao'. Without any hints, users cannot infer what these fields represent (e.g., state, name, registration number). The description adds no clarity to the parameters.

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 that the tool performs a query (consulta) for registration data from the official Brazilian Federal Council of Medicine. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on medical registry lookups, mentioning the official source and the prepaid credit model.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago', indicating a paid query service. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but gives sufficient context that this tool is for fetching registration data, not for authentication or general platform operations.

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