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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation incurs a cost ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), requires no platform credentials ('sem credenciais da plataforma'), and accesses non-confidential official data ('a mesma disponível ao cidadão, não é dado sigiloso'). It also mentions LGPD responsibilities, which is an important legal/behavioral note. This meaningfully supplements 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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and operational/legal details following. It avoids fluff and stays within 3-4 sentences, although the legal phrasing feels slightly tacked-on. The front-loading of purpose is good, and nothing is redundant, though clearer formatting could improve scannability.

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 simple read-only query tool with three optional parameters, the description covers the high-level purpose, cost, authentication, and legal context. However, it omits critical details like what happens when no parameters are provided, how parameters combine, and the exact structure of a valid query. Since there is no output schema, the description should have addressed these gaps to be considered 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 provides no information about the parameters (nome, tipo, inscricao). With 0% schema description coverage and no mention of these fields in the description, the agent receives zero guidance on how to populate them or their expected formats. The description's generic reference to 'consulta' does not compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 'Conselho Regional de Farmácia GO: Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial' clearly conveys a query/lookup operation for registration data from the CRF-GO official source. It uses a specific resource (CRF-GO) and implies a read/query verb ('consulta'), which distinguishes it from the unrelated generic sibling tools. However, the phrasing is slightly fragmented and could be more explicit with a defined verb like 'search' or 'list.'

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions operational details like 'sem credenciais da plataforma' (no platform credentials) and 'pague por consulta' (pay per query), but these are not framed as usage conditions or exclusion criteria. The phrase 'não é dado sigiloso' (not confidential data) weakly implies it is for non-sensitive data, but there is no clear 'use when...' or 'do not use when...' context.

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