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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent; the description adds valuable context beyond that: the query requires prepaid credit, no platform credentials, only public non-confidential official data are returned, and LGPD responsibilities rest with the client. This is behavioral detail that annotations don't fully disclose, so it earns recognition.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main purpose early. It packs in relevant business and compliance details without excessive fluff. The sentence structure is slightly run-on and cluttered, but overall it is efficient for the amount of context it provides.

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 a single string parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose, official source, cost model, and LGPD responsibility, which is reasonably complete for an intended use. It falls short of describing the exact return data or what qualifies as a valid 'inscricao', but the annotation and simple parameter count otherwise support a fairly complete profile.

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 input schema has a single required string 'inscricao', but the description provides zero coverage of that parameter. The agent must infer from the tool name that it's a registration number, but no expected format, possible examples, or other helpful semantics are given. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should have picked up the slack and does not.

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 and title point to a specific tool: a query/consult of the Pernambuco Regional Dentistry Council (CRO-PE) registration from an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace. However, it does not use a crisp verb+object construction and the phrase 'Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial' is somewhat imprecise, leaving the exact action implicit.

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 communicates conditions that affect use—prepaid credit, no platform credentials, official public data—but it does not explicitly say when to use the tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no semantically similar sibling tools, which lowers the need for alternatives, but the guidance is still implied at best.

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