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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context: the query is non-confidential data, it is not a platform-side credential operation, it costs prepaid credits, and there are LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 short and has an informative first sentence; the following clauses add relevant charging, privacy, and LGPD context. It is slightly dense, but still efficient and not bloated.

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 purpose, billing, and legal responsibility, but does not describe the required inputs or the shape/semantics of the result. With three required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, a paid CRLV query tool needs additional operational context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 does not explain placa, renavam, documento_proprietario, their formats, or how they relate to the CRLV lookup. The parameter names are left entirely to inference, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema property names.

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 a specific operation: 'Impressa de CRLV' and 'consulta em fonte oficial' for DETRAN AP. It identifies the resource (official Brazilian vehicle/CRLV data) and differentiates itself from the sibling tools, which are generic platform operations like authenticate, marketplace, or report_bug.

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 clear usage context: this is a paid, prepaid-credit consultation from an official source, requiring no platform credentials. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough for selection.

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