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

The description adds context about official data sources, non-confidential nature, and LGPD responsibility, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects, so it adds only moderate transparency.

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 paragraph with redundant phrases like 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais', but it is not overly long. It lacks structured formatting such as bullet points or bulleted usage notes, though it is readable.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., fields, structure). It also omits the meaning of the 'inscricao' parameter and how the query works, leaving the tool's full functionality underdescribed.

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 only parameter 'inscricao' is not described in the schema or the tool description. The description mentions 'cadastro' but does not explain what 'inscricao' represents or what format is expected, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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 a query tool for registration data from the Regional Council of Dentistry, with 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'consulta informação' specifying the action. It is somewhat general about the exact data returned, but the purpose is evident.

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?

It mentions payment via prepaid credits and lack of platform credentials, but does not compare with alternative tools or specify when this tool should be preferred over others. No explicit guidance on usage scenarios beyond the query itself.

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