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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: payment is per query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials are needed, the data is the same as available to citizens and is not confidential, and the client is the data controller under LGPD. This is exactly the kind of extra operational and legal context annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded with the key resource and official-source qualifier, then adds concise context about hosting, payment, data sensitivity, and LGPD. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the length is reasonable for the tool's complexity.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool requires more operational detail than this description provides. It explains billing and data governance but omits what the returned guide contains, how login works, and what optional parameters like periodo or representado control.

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 any of the 7 parameters, including the required login_cpf and login_senha. The note about 'no platform credentials' is potentially confusing because required credential-like fields exist, and optional fields like pkcs12_cert, representado, pagina, and periodo are completely unexplained.

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 for FGTS Collection Guide (Guia de Arrecadação) from official Brazilian sources, using a specific verb (consultar/consulta) and resource. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by naming the exact domain and official-source nature.

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 clear context for use: no platform credentials are required, usage is charged from prepaid credit, and data comes from official Brazilian sources. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over unrelated siblings.

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