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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions payment model (prepaid credit), absence of platform credentials, and LGPD data-handling responsibility. Combined with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the agent understands this is a safe read operation. It doesn't describe the return format, but the annotations already cover safety, so the added context is valuable.

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, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence, followed by relevant operational notes. It is not overly verbose and is structured as a short paragraph, making it easy to scan. However, it could be improved by front-loading the parameter information.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotation details for inputs), the description is incomplete. It explains the data source and payment, but does not describe what the tool returns, which parameters are needed, or any prerequisites (e.g., having credits). An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 schema has 6 parameters, 2 required, and 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention any parameter names, types, or purposes. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess what 'placa' and 'renavam' mean. This is a critical 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's purpose: 'DETRAN GO: Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial' (vehicle consultation from official source). It identifies the specific resource (vehicle info from DETRAN GO) and the action (consulta), distinguishing it from sibling 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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool: it's hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand this is the designated vehicle-query tool, and there are no contradictory usage hints.

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