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

With annotations already indicating read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds useful context: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and data protection responsibilities under LGPD. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 several useful pieces of information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and stays reasonably concise, though the legal and payment details add length.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not mention expected return values or clarify the relationship between optional CPF/CNPJ and required password/certificate code. It provides some context but leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides no explanation of parameters like login_cpf, login_cnpj, login_senha, or codigo_certidao. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely unclear.

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: checking certificate authenticity ('Autenticidade de Certidão') from an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by specifying the resource and action.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for verifying official Brazilian certificate authenticity. It clarifies that it uses public data and requires prepaid credit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions.

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