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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations: it mentions prepaid credit payment, official data source, non-confidential nature, and LGPD responsibility. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's operational and legal context without contradicting the 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, consisting of three sentences, and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds relevant context (purpose, payment, data source, legal) without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 sufficiently covers the tool's core purpose, payment mechanism, official sourcing, and legal compliance. While it does not specify output format or error handling, for a simple CRLV query tool the provided context is adequate, though it could mention expected output (e.g., document PDF).

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 description provides no elaboration on the three required parameters (placa, renavam, documento_proprietario). Since the schema lacks any descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning entirely unaddressed.

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 function: printing CRLV documents and consulting an official source. It explicitly names the resource (CRLV) and the action (consulta/impressão), distinguishing it from the generic platform-level sibling tools.

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 purpose implies usage for CRLV retrieval, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide usage scenarios. It conveys the context of an official, prepaid query, but lacks direct 'use this when' guidance.

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