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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, which the description is consistent with. Beyond that, the description adds critical behavioral traits: it requires payment per query (pre-paid credits), uses its own credentials (a3, a3_pin, login_cpf, login_senha) instead of platform credentials, and notes LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond annotations and is valuable for the agent.

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 moderately concise, containing several sentences that cover the source, payment, credentials, and legal context. It is front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, but includes some operational details that are useful. Not overly verbose, but could be tightened by removing redundant phrasing like 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão)'.

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 required parameters, zero parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description must provide substantial guidance. It explains the general purpose and operational constraints (payment, credentials, LGPD) but does not describe what each parameter is for, what the expected output looks like, or any usage patterns. This is insufficient 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%—no parameter descriptions are provided. The tool description does not explain the meaning of any of the six required parameters (a3, a3_pin, login_cpf, login_senha, chassi, uf). Even though 'chassi' and 'uf' appear in the text, they are not elaborated. The agent receives no assistance in understanding how to fill these fields, which is a major 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 it's a consultation tool for vehicle data from other states (Base de Outros Estados) using official sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) which are platform-level operations, so the core purpose is evident. However, it doesn't specify exactly what vehicle information is returned (e.g., owner, restrictions), leaving some ambiguity.

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 use for querying vehicle information from other states, and mentions payment via pre-paid credits and credential requirements, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since sibling tools are unrelated, the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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