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

With annotations indicating read-only (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true), the description adds crucial context: it uses official sources, requires payment per query, and involves LGPD compliance. It also clarifies data is not confidential, which is important for agents handling privacy. No contradiction 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 concise, packed with relevant information (source, payment, data privacy, legal note), and well-structured with clear sentences. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the single parameter and presence of annotations, the description covers the essential context: official source, payment model, data sensitivity, and LGPD responsibility. It lacks explicit return format, but as there is no output schema, it could be improved by describing what the response contains (e.g., whether it's a Boolean or a document), but overall it's quite complete.

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 parameter 'placa' is only defined as a string with no format or pattern. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it only mentions 'por placa' without specifying the expected format (e.g., Mercosur format, letters/numbers). However, the singular required parameter is simple enough that a baseline 3 is reasonable.

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 'DETRAN CE: Certidão Negativa de Débitos (por placa), consulta em fonte oficial', identifying the specific resource (vehicle plate) and action (query). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the sibling tools are unrelated (auth, marketplace, etc.), so differentiation is implicit.

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 mentions it's a paid query using prepaid credits and that it's hosted by the platform, which informs when to use it (when you need a negative debt certificate). However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, such as for other states or different types of certificates.

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