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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: hosted platform, no credentials, pay-per-query, public access data, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, enriching the agent's understanding of legal and operational boundaries.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential context on hosting, payment, data classification, and legal responsibility. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 is a straightforward lookup, but the description does not specify the return format or behavior of the 'completo' parameter. While it covers purpose and access details, the missing output semantics and optional parameter explanation leave gaps for full operational clarity.

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 explains the two required parameters (CPF and NIS) as inputs for the query, but does not clarify the optional 'completo' parameter or provide format details. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving one parameter undocumented in meaning.

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 'Verifica o vínculo de um agricultor com o programa Garantia Safra' using CPF and NIS, specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes.

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 usage context: no credentials needed, prepaid credit required, and the information is public access. It implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, which are unnecessary given the unrelated sibling tools.

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