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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the paid, prepaid-credit model, hosting context, and LGPD data-control responsibilities. It also clarifies data is not confidential, adding useful legal and operational context.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then adds service and legal context in two additional sentences. No wasted words, though the paragraph structure could be improved.

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 tool requiring PKCS#12 certificates and multiple Brazilian ID numbers, the description omits crucial instructions on obtaining or formatting these values. The lack of output schema or return-value details further limits an agent's ability to judge success.

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 zero information about the six required parameters, which are only listed as bare names like 'modelo' and 'validade_cnh' with no format or purpose explained. With 0% schema coverage, this is a critical gap that prevents correct parameter population.

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 identifies it as a consultation tool for CNH data from DETRAN PR ('consulta em fonte oficial'), distinguishing it from generic sibling tools. However, it does not list specific use cases or return data, leaving scope slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives; it only provides service details like payment and legal compliance. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites for use, though the sibling list contains no direct equivalent.

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