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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as auth requirements or data format, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with no extraneous words, earning its place.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the 'completo' parameter, the nature of the returned data, or any prerequisites. It leaves the agent guessing about how to use the tool effectively.

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 mentions searching by CPF or CNPJ, giving meaning to those parameters, but it does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves one parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 indicates the tool retrieves notary protests for São Paulo based on CPF/CNPJ. It distinguishes from the sibling 'credito_protestos' through the 'SP' suffix, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list'. The resource and scoping are clear.

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 implies usage for São Paulo-specific protest data but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to use this over 'credito_protestos' or other tools, relying on the name and context.

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