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 valuable behavioral details beyond these: no platform credentials required, payment via prepaid credit, data is not confidential, and client is data controller under LGPD. It does not contradict annotations and meaningfully enhances the agent's understanding of costs, authentication, 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 a single concise paragraph that front-loads the tool's purpose and then adds necessary operational details (payment, credentials, LGPD). Every sentence contributes information; there is no repetition or fluff. It could be slightly more compact, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 description covers operational and legal aspects but lacks essential information about input parameters and expected output. Without an output schema, it does not describe what the query returns, nor does it define 'placa' and 'ait'. This gap prevents the agent from fully understanding tool behavior, especially given the lack of parameter semantics.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the two required parameters 'placa' and 'ait'. The schema only gives type (string) and required status, leaving the agent to guess their meaning (likely license plate and traffic infraction notice). The description fails to compensate, making parameter usage unclear.

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 explicitly states the tool performs a 'Pesquisa de Indicação do Condutor Infrator' (query of infracting driver indication) from an official DER SP source. It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from generic sibling platform tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which serve unrelated functions.

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 operational context (hosted by platform, no credentials needed, prepaid credit required, LGPD compliance) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since siblings are unrelated, no alternative query tool exists, but the description would benefit from specifying the exact use case (e.g., for checking driver indication status using plates and AIT).

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