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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral characteristics: it is a paid service ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), it uses public, non-confidential data ('não é dado sigiloso'), and it clarifies the client's data controller responsibility under LGPD. This adds meaningful context 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 structured with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context (hosting, payment, data source, LGPD). It is not overly verbose for the amount of information it conveys, though some legal and payment details could be condensed without losing value.

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 the tool's purpose, data source, payment model, and privacy responsibilities. However, it does not describe what the response contains (since there is no output schema) or how errors are handled, leaving the agent without a clear expectation of the query result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain that 'inscricao' is the dentist's registration number or provide any format/constraints (e.g., numeric, length). The only hint is the tool name and 'Cadastro' in the purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to know exactly what to pass.

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: 'Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial' – it queries registration data from the Regional Council of Dentistry of Rio de Janeiro. It explicitly names the resource (CRO RJ) and the action (consulta/query), distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are unrelated meta-tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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 querying CRO RJ registration data and provides context about hosting, payment via pre-paid credits, and lack of platform credentials. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but since siblings are clearly different, the intended context is clear and sufficient.

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