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

Annotations already specify read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a certificate, consistent with annotations, but no further behavioral detail is provided.

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?

Single, concise sentence with no redundant words, effectively conveying the tool's core function.

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?

Description is sparse; lacks details on output format, purpose of 'completo', and any prerequisites, though it covers the essential purpose and required municipality parameter.

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?

Mentions CNPJ/CPF and municipality, but does not explain the 'IM' or 'completo' parameters, leaving uncertainty about their meaning or optionality.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a municipal negative debt certificate via CNPJ/CPF, distinguishing it from other compliance tools that target different scopes (e.g., antecedentes, CEAF).

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?

Indicates the need to inform the municipality, implying this tool is for municipal-level debt checks, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over sibling tools or list exclusions.

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