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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about pay-per-query, no credentials, and LGPD responsibilities, but these are more operational than behavioral. It does not describe what happens on success or failure, or any side effects, but since read-only, that's fine. The description aligns 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 a single paragraph, relatively concise, and front-loads the purpose. It includes extra context about payment and LGPD, but that is necessary for an agent to understand usage constraints. Could be structured with bullet points, but it's acceptable.

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?

With 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what inputs are needed and what the response contains. It only mentions the purpose and legal aspects, but gives no guidance on required fields like placa, ait, cpf, cnh, or cnh_validade, nor what the result looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 5 required parameters (ait, cnh, cpf, placa, cnh_validade) and one optional (file_pdf), but description provides no explanation for any parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to clarify what these fields mean or their format. This is a significant gap.

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 performs a query ('consulta') for 'Indicação do Condutor Infrator' from DER SP, an official source. It specifies the resource and differentiates from general-purpose sibling tools like authenticate and connect.

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 the context of use: hosted platform, no credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credits, and that it queries official Brazilian sources. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though siblings are unrelated general tools.

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