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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent, and the description adds beyond that: payment model, data sensitivity (non-confidential), LGPD responsibility, and clarification that no platform credentials are needed. This adds useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

A single, concise paragraph with no wasted sentences. It includes necessary legal and payment context without being overly verbose.

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 leaves major gaps: it does not explain what identifiers are needed, what the query returns, or any usage prerequisite beyond having credentials. The legal/payment info is good but does not cover core functional completeness.

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 explanation of any of the 6 parameters (chassi, renavam, login_cpf, etc.). It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation at all.

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?

Specifies a clear verb+resource: 'consulta' (query) for 'licenciamento' (licensing) from an official source. This distinguishes it from sibling admin tools like authenticate or 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?

Provides clear context: describes it as a paid query with prepaid credit, pulling only public non-confidential data from official sources. Does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are generic, so context is sufficient.

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