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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=trueestrutive=false. The description adds valuable context: payment per query with prepaid credits, no platform credentials needed, and data is not confidential. Also clarifies client responsibility under LGPD, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 of moderate length. It includes necessary legal disclaimers, but these could be more succinct. It's not excessively long, but it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for usage) and interleaves legal text with functional description.

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 tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptionsating. The description does not explain how to provide parameters, what the expected output is, or any prerequisites like needing a digital certificate. It also doesn't clarify what a 'Guia Rápida' is. Given the complexity (authentication, certificates, periods), the description is far from complete.

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 coverage is 0%. The description provides no explanation of the 6 parameters (periodo, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, representado). Parameter names give hints (cpf login, password, cert), but the description fails to clarify their required format or purpose, which is critical since no schema descriptions exist.

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 states 'FGTS: Emissão de Guia Rápida, consulta em fonte oficial,' which clearly indicates a consult operation on the official FGTS source. It's distinct from sibling tools (authentication, connectivity, marketplace, etc.), but the purpose could be clearer about what exactly is returned (e.g., a guide document vs. raw data).

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 about the data source and legal responsibility but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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