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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by disclosing payment requirements (prepaid credit), that data is not confidential, and the client is LGPD data controller. No contradiction; it enriches behavioral context.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the purpose. It covers essential operational details (payment, LGPD) without significant redundancy. Slightly verbose but appropriate for the regulatory context.

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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not describe what data is returned, expected output format, or any parameter semantics. It also fails to clarify optional vs required filters. The LGPD/payment context is helpful but not sufficient for effective invocation.

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 has 3 parameters (cpf, nome, nome_mae) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's purpose, format, or which are needed. It falls far short of compensating for the schema gap, offering no guidance on how to construct a valid query.

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 it queries official Brazilian arrest warrants from the CNJ, with a specific verb 'consulta' (query) and resource 'Mandados de Prisão'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which are generic platform utilities.

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?

Provides clear context: official source, no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and LGPD compliance. It implies when to use (need to check arrest warrants) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, though siblings are unrelated.

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