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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: cost per query (prepaid credit), no platform credentials required, data is non-confidential, and the client is the data controller under LGPD. This enriches the agent's understanding of operational and legal boundaries.

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 composed of three sentences, each providing relevant operational or legal context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds cost and compliance details. Slightly verbose due to LGPD phrasing, but still concise and organized.

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 is relatively simple (read-only query with optional parameters). The description covers the data source, cost, and legal responsibility, but lacks guidance on parameter usage and expected output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided some insight into return values, but it does not. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 has three parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. There is no guidance on how to use these parameters or whether they are mutually exclusive. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.

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 function: querying official CNJ data on Improbidade Administrativa and Inelegibilidade. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and names the resource (Conselho Nacional de Justiça), distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are generic platform operations.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for querying official Brazilian sources, with prepaid credits and no platform credentials. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient.

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