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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it is hosted, requires no credentials, involves prepaid credit, and accesses public information only. It also clarifies LGPD responsibilities, which is important for compliance-sensitive tools. No contradiction with 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 composed of three sentences and is relatively concise. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, while the subsequent sentences provide cost, access, and legal context. The LGPD clause adds legal nuance but could be considered slightly verbose; nevertheless, it is relevant for a data-querying tool.

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 tool is simple, but the description leaves gaps. It does not explain the meaning of the 'completo' parameter, and since there is no output schema, it also does not describe the return format. While annotations cover safety, the missing parameter detail and lack of response indication make it incomplete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It names the required parameters (CPF and DataNascimento) and explains their role in the query, but it completely omits the optional 'completo' parameter, leaving its meaning unknown. Partial compensation for the schema gap, but not complete.

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 action ('Consulta a Declaração de Aptidão ao Pronaf (DAP)'), the target resource ('de uma pessoa física'), and the required inputs ('CPF e data de nascimento'). This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are focused on authentication, marketplace, and system utilities.

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 important usage context: hosted platform, no credentials, prepaid credit per query. This tells the user how to invoke it and what to expect in terms of access and cost. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is needed.

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