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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds context about credential requirements and payment model, and clarifies that data is not confidential. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 includes redundant phrases (e.g., repeating 'official sources') and legal boilerplate. It is structured into a few sentences, but could be tightened without losing essential information.

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 lacks key practical details: it does not explain what the response contains, how to construct a valid query, or what each parameter means. It covers legal and operational context but misses crucial usage information that would make the tool self-explanatory.

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 like `uf`, `query`, and `tipo_inscricao`, but the description gives no explanation of their meaning or expected values. Without any hints, the agent cannot infer how to populate these fields correctly.

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 this tool queries information from official Brazilian sources, specifically for CFMV registration data. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings by hinting at the specific domain (veterinary medicine council), though it could be more explicit about the exact data returned.

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 mentions operational aspects like lack of platform credentials and prepaid payment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no direct guidance on appropriate use cases or prerequisites beyond legal disclaimers.

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