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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing payment requirements, the official nature of the data, non-confidentiality, and LGPD compliance. This adds significant transparency about the tool's behavior and legal responsibilities.

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 relatively concise but includes repetition (e.g., 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'). It is structured as a single, readable paragraph.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the data source, legal implications, and payment model. It does not cover the 'endereco' parameter, which is a notable omission, but overall it gives a reasonable understanding of the tool's operation.

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 two parameters (placa and endereco) with no descriptions. The description only mentions 'por placa' and completely omits 'endereco', providing no semantic guidance for either parameter. This is a major gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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: to query negative debt certificates by license plate from official sources. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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?

It explains that the tool is a paid query using pre-paid credit and does not require platform credentials, implying when to use it (for checking debts). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or specify exact scenarios beyond the general query context.

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