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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds important behavioral context: the payment model, lack of platform credentials, the public nature of the data, and LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 four sentences, each adding meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and not overly verbose, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'oficiais' repeated).

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the expected inputs or return values. It covers purpose, payment, and legal aspects but omits critical operational details.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters (uc, uf, mes_ano, login_cpf, login_cnpj, login_senha, acesso_imobiliaria). The agent is left to guess their meaning and format, making correct invocation difficult.

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 identifies the tool as performing downloads/queries from an official Neoenergia source, and the name includes 'contas' to indicate utility bills. It distinguishes itself from generic platform siblings, though it could be more explicit about the exact data being retrieved.

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 useful context for usage: it is hosted, requires no platform credentials, charges prepaid credit per query, and queries official public data. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated generic operations, so this is clear enough.

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