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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies payment model (prepaid credits), that it uses official sources, and LGPD responsibilities. It does not contradict the readOnly/idempotent annotations and effectively supplements them with cost and compliance information.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary context (official source, payment, legal) without extraneous detail. Each sentence adds value, though the legal note could be shortened without loss.

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 description omits critical details: it does not explain what the tool returns (only implies restrictions), does not clarify the parameter semantics, and gives no information about error cases or required preconditions. Given the tool's five required parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 fails to explain any of the five parameters (a3, login_cpf, login_senha, etc.). It only hints at the need for user credentials via 'sem credenciais da plataforma', but does not elaborate on what each parameter means or how they map to the official source. With no schema descriptions, this leaves the agent guessing.

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 consulting active DETRAN restrictions from an official source, with a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('Restrições / Bloqueios Ativos DETRAN'). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like authenticate or show_version, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Provides context that it queries official Brazilian sources and mentions prepaid credit but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over others or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having a valid vehicle chassis) 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.