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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: it's a paid service (pre-paid credits), data is not confidential, and the client is data controller under LGPD. This exceeds the minimal burden given 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 concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. It includes important usage and legal notes but remains compact. Not excessively verbose, but could be slightly more structured.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description gives enough context for an agent to understand it's a read-only, paid query to official source. It doesn't explain return value structure, but with no output schema, that is expected. It lacks info on parameter combinations (e.g., minimum requirements), but overall it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the parameters (uf, cpf, cnpj, nome, registro) but they are self-explanatory given the domain. The description does not add parameter-specific details like formats or required combinations. Baseline is 3 due to zero coverage, but it doesn't go beyond that.

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 purpose: to query the Federal Council of Psychology registry from the official source. It specifies the resource (official Brazilian bodies) and differentiates from siblings (which are platform-level tools).

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?

It explains this is a paid consulta with pre-paid credits and that it queries official sources. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but siblings are clearly not related. It gives context on when to use this (for official data consultation) and implies when not to (not for confidential data).

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