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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds context: 'não é dado sigiloso' and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão).' It also mentions payment with prepaid credit, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what happens on failure, rate limits, or data handling beyond LGPD. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes relevant context about payment, data source, and LGPD. However, it could be more structured, but it is not overly verbose. It earns a 4 for being efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (26 parameters, 18 required, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required parameters, the expected input format, or the return value. The description only provides high-level context about the consultation and legal aspects. For a tool with such a large schema, the description should provide more guidance on how to fill the parameters and what to expect.

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 there are 26 parameters, 18 required. The description does not explain any parameter semantics. It only mentions 'consulta' but does not describe what each parameter means or how they relate. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings. This is a significant gap.

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: 'ECRVSP Documentos: Transferência de Proprietário, consulta em fonte oficial.' It specifies the resource (transfer of ownership documents) and the action (consultation). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other document consultation tools, but the specific domain (transfer of owner) is clear.

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 context on when to use: 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' indicates it's a paid consultation. It also mentions 'O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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