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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no platform credentials are needed, it is paid via prepaid credit, the data is not confidential, and the client is the data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a clear opening line defining the resource and action, followed by compact operational and legal notes. It is not overly verbose, though it could be tightened by removing redundancy between 'Consultar' and 'consulta'.

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?

Given six required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain parameter meanings and expected results. It provides useful operational context (payment, credentials, legal) but omits any detail on parameter semantics or return values, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 explain the six required parameters (a3, a3_pin, login_cpf, login_senha, placa, renavam). The mention of 'sem credenciais da plataforma' hints that the login fields are external credentials, but the meaning of 'a3' and 'a3_pin' remains unclear, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.

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 the tool as a query ('Consultar') for ECRVSP ATPV (sales intention) against official Brazilian sources, which distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'. The acronym expansion and scope ('consulta em fonte oficial') make the purpose 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 implies usage context by explaining the tool is hosted on the platform, requires prepaid credit, and involves LGPD compliance, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Since no sibling tools perform a similar function, the implied guidance is sufficient for a minimum viable score.

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