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

Annotations already tell the agent this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is metered/prepaid, the tool uses official public sources, no platform credentials are needed, and LGPD data controller responsibilities apply. This is useful behavioral and compliance disclosure.

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 compact Portuguese paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then adds necessary operational and legal caveats. It is slightly heavy on compliance language, but each sentence contributes relevant information and it avoids unnecessary filler.

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 covers intent, source officiality, payment, credentials, and privacy obligations, but it does not describe what the response contains, whether a CPF, CNPJ, or name is required, or how to format identifiers. Given the dependency on the schema is high — and the schema is sparse — the description leaves relevant operational gaps.

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 provides no guidance about the parameters cpf, cnpj, or nome. Schema description coverage is 0%, and there are no format hints, required-parameter instructions, or combination rules in the description, which is risky because an agent cannot tell whether one of the three identifiers must always be supplied.

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 resource (IBAMA Certidão de Débitos) and the action (consulta em fonte oficial). It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools, which are generic platform tools like authenticate or marketplace, by specifying a concrete domain query purpose.

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 gives useful usage context: the data is public, non-confidential, available to citizens, and the query is paid via prepaid credit, with no platform credentials required. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it, but it gives clear conditions for legitimate use.

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