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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent; the description adds key behavioral context: 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' (pay per query with prepaid credit) highlights a non-obvious cost implication, and 'sem credenciais da plataforma' clarifies no authentication is needed. It also clarifies data sensitivity and legal responsibility, which goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 block of four sentences, each carrying some distinct information (domain, payment, data origin, legal). While not excessively long, the first sentence is grammatically stilted ('Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial') and the flow could be improved by front-loading the tool's action and then adding context. It is compact but could be clearer in structure.

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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers several important aspects: the data source is official, it is not confidential, there is a cost, and there are legal responsibilities. However, it leaves out what the response contains (e.g., whether it returns the registration record, errors, or pagination). Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on return value would have made it more complete.

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 a single required parameter `inscricao` with no description, and the tool description does not explain what this parameter represents beyond its self-evident name (registration number). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate with details on format or meaning, but it only vaguely refers to 'Cadastro'. This is insufficient.

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 identifies the domain (CRO-SE) and hints at a registration query ('Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial'), but it never explicitly states that this tool returns the registration details for a given professional. The phrase is more of a label than a clear statement, lacking a direct verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns.' It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools only by domain, not by a clear functional description.

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?

Usage is implied through context: it queries official Brazilian public data from the regional dentistry council. The description notes the data is not confidential and that the client is the data controller under LGPD, which sets compliance expectations but gives no explicit guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives or mention of alternative tools. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, falling short of a 4.

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