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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=false, destructive=false. The description adds that it is an official source, requires prepaid credits, and includes LGPD compliance info VIP. It clarifies that no platform credentials are needed, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose potential response delays, rate limits, or any side effects. The mention of the source being non-confidential adds some trust context, but it stays at a general level. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single paragraph with three sentences. It includes legal context about data governance, which is relevant but not strictly operational. It's not overly long, but the LGPD mention could be moved elsewhere. The purpose is front-loaded, so structure is acceptable. I give a 3 because it's not particularly concise or structured for quick scanning.

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 tool has 7 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. The description provides zero explanation of what the parameters mean or what the response looks like. It also fails to mention the authentication parameters (login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert) or how they relate to the 'sem credenciais da plataforma' statement. Given the complexity and lack of schema coverage, the description is incomplete.

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 input schema shows 6 parameters (3 required, 3 optional), but the description provides no explanation for any of them. It doesn't clarify what 'login_cpf', 'login_senha', or 'pkcs12_cert' are for, nor does it explain the purpose of 'placa', 'renavam' beyond obvious domain knowledge. With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears full responsibility to explain parameters but fails to do so.

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 it's a 'consulta' (query) to an official DETRAN MG source for fines (multas) with descriptive details. It distinguishes itself from siblings (which are system/tool management functions) by naming the specific domain and operation. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'descritivos' means exactly, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond mentioning the need for prepaid credits. It implies a use case (querying official vehicle fine data) but doesn't offer comparison to any other tool or mention when not to use it. No guidance is better than nothing, but it's minimal.

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