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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond these: no credentials needed, paid per query (cost implications), and public data with LGPD responsibility for the client. This gives the agent actionable transparency about costs and legal constraints.

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: it opens with the core purpose, then adds short contextual notes on hosting, payment, and legal aspects. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or fluff content.

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 moderately complex with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main operation, payment model, and public-data legal context, but the undocumented 'completo' parameter and lack of any return-value information are notable gaps. For a read-only public query tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description names CPF and RegistroNacional as inputs, which helps map the required parameters. However, the optional 'completo' parameter is completely undocumented, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates but leaves a gap for the optional parameter.

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 queries the professional registration of an engineer or agronomist in CONFEA/CREA using CPF and national registration. This is a specific verb, resource, and input, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling 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?

The description provides clear context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It also clarifies that the data is public access, guiding appropriate use. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, no similar sibling tools exist, 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.