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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses additional behavioral traits such as the platform-based hosting without credentials, prepaid credit payment per query, and the nature of data (not confidential). It also clarifies LGPD compliance and the client's data controller role, which adds meaningful transparency without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by supplementary details on payment, data sensitivity, and legal obligations. While it is slightly verbose, each sentence adds context, and there is no irrelevant filler. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers contextual aspects like payment, data source, and legal requirements, but it omits specifics about the input parameter and expected output (no output schema exists). It gives a general sense of what the tool does but lacks enough detail to fully guide an agent on how to invoke it correctly, especially regarding the 'inscricao' input.

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 schema has one required parameter 'inscricao' with no description (coverage 0%). The description does not explain what this parameter represents (e.g., it should be the registration number) or its format. Since the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, it leaves the agent uncertain about the parameter's meaning.

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 states the tool's purpose: querying registration information from the Regional Council of Dentistry PI (CRO PI) via an official source. It uses specific language 'Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial' and distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug, which serve entirely different functions.

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 some context (e.g., it queries official Brazilian sources available to citizens) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusionary conditions. The usage is implicitly tied to the tool's name and domain, but there is no direct comparison or guidance for when not to use it.

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