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

The description explicitly states 'Incluir' (include/insert) which implies a write operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct contradiction. Therefore, the description fails to align with the annotation and receives a score of 1.

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 short and to the point, but it is dense and mixes technical, legal, and business information in one sentence. It covers the payment model and data source but lacks clear structure and front-loading of the core action. No redundancy, but could be better organized.

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 21 required parameters, no output schema, and a tool that appears to both create and query, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the workflow (how 'incluir' and 'consultar' interact), what credentials are needed (a3, a3_pin, login_senha), or what the response contains. The tool's complexity demands much more detail.

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 explanation of the 21 parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but does not. The prefixes (comprador_, proprietario_) offer only weak hints, and the description adds no semantic meaning beyond 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 tool's domain (Brazilian vehicle sale intention/ATPV) and that it includes and queries official sources. It distinguishes itself from generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by naming the specific vehicle-related purpose. However, the dual action (incluir and consultar) is not fully clarified—it could be a write or read operation or both, and the description doesn't explicitly separate these behaviors.

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 mentions it is hosted by the platform, uses pre-paid credits, and queries official Brazilian sources, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It doesn't state typical scenarios or when not to use it.

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