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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond annotations: payment model, lack of platform credentials, non-confidential nature of data, and LGPD controller responsibility. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

Three sentences cover the core purpose, cost/auth model, and legal framing with minimal fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct information, though the middle sentence is slightly list-like.

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 simple read-only query tool with three self-descriptive parameters and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, credentials, and legal responsibility. It is slightly incomplete on parameter formats and expected output, but the low complexity and annotations reduce the need for more.

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 does not mention placa, renavam, or documento_proprietario at all. It therefore adds no parameter-level meaning such as expected formats (e.g., plate format, document type) or constraints, leaving the agent to rely only on parameter names.

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 action ('consulta em fonte oficial') and the resource ('CRLV'/'DETRAN PA'), with added scope ('informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'). This is specific and distinguishes the tool from the unrelated platform-management siblings.

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 gives useful usage context: official source query, no platform credentials required, and prepaid per-query cost. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are platform-level utilities rather than similar query tools, so the context is sufficient.

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