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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context: the query is hosted by the platform, paid per consultation with prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, and concerns non-confidential official data with LGPD responsibilities. 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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first clause. The following sentences about hosting, payment, and LGPD are relevant but add some length; still no wasted filler.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits return-value behavior, authentication semantics (why login/pkcs12 params exist given 'no platform credentials'), and the meaning/format of ano_vigencia. Payment and legal context are helpful, but operational essentials are missing.

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?

Schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, or ano_vigencia. Only the required cnpj_estabelecimento is inferable from the tool name. The description fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'consulta em fonte oficial' of Dataprev's FAP (Fator Acidentário de Prevenção). This is a specific query operation on an official resource, and it distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace.

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?

Provides clear context: use it to query official Brazilian FAP data, with prepaid credit and no platform credentials, and notes that data is the same as available to citizens. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for this standalone query tool.

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