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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the payment model (prepaid credit), the non-confidential nature of the data, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This adds meaningful context about constraints and legal usage expectations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes necessary operational and legal details without redundancy. It is slightly dense but remains concise for the information conveyed.

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 single-parameter, read-only query tool with strong annotations, the description covers the purpose, data source, payment requirement, data sensitivity, and legal responsibilities. It does not specify output format, but no output schema exists, so this is acceptable.

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 parameter 'inscricao' with no description; the tool description implies it is the registration number but never explicitly states its meaning or format. Given zero schema coverage, the description could have better explained this parameter to guide agents.

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 queries registration data from the Regional Council of Dentistry of Rio Grande do Sul, with specific resource (cadastro) and action (consulta). It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate or show_version by focusing on a specific official data retrieval task.

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 indicates the tool requires prepaid credit and that it accesses public official data, implying use for registration verification. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but siblings are not alternatives for this specific query, so the guidance is sufficient.

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