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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral context: payment via prepaid credit, no platform credentials needed, data is non-confidential official information, and the client is data controller under LGPD. It does not contradict the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and obligations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose ('DNIT: Infrações (CNPJ), consulta em fonte oficial') before providing payment, data, and legal context. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or repetition. It's slightly dense but efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the description should explain more about expected input and return. It covers purpose, cost, data sensitivity, and legal compliance, but omits how to use the authentication-related parameters and what exactly the response contains (beyond 'infrações'). The ambiguity around credentials (platform vs. official source) further reduces completeness. It's adequate for a simple read query but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It fails to do so. The required 'cnpj' and 'razao_social' are self-evident from the tool's purpose, but the optional login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, and pkcs12_pass are unexplained. The mention of 'sem credenciais da plataforma' confuses rather than clarifies, as these credentials presumably belong to the official source. No parameter meaning is added beyond their 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 it's a query for DNIT infractions (CNPJ) from an official source ('DNIT: Infrações (CNPJ), consulta em fonte oficial'). It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource, distinguishing it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.). A slight deduction for not explicitly stating that it retrieves a list of infractions for the given CNPJ, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 contextual usage hints: it's hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit per query, and accesses official Brazilian sources available to citizens. It clarifies the data is not confidential and notes LGPD responsibility. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use). Given the niche scope, the context is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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