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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it requires payment (prepaid credit), does not require platform credentials, and clarifies that the data is not confidential and the client is the data controller. These are transparent and consistent with read-only and idempotent hints, enhancing the agent's understanding of side effects and responsibilities.

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 main purpose in the first sentence, then adds payment and legal notes. It is reasonably concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros') and verbose legal statements. Overall, it is well-structured and not excessively long.

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 lacks essential operational details: it does not specify which parameter to use (cpf vs cnpj) or if both are accepted, it does not describe the expected output or data format (no output schema), and it omits error handling (e.g., insufficient credit, invalid IDs). While it provides legal context, it is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret 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?

The schema defines two parameters (cpf and cnpj) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning or usage. It only mentions the consultation without referencing the parameters. There is no compensation for the missing schema coverage, so parameter semantics are essentially absent.

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's purpose: to consult IBAMA regularity certificates from official sources. The verb 'consultar' is specific, and the resource (IBAMA certificate) is identified. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, so no confusion.

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 usage by noting it is a paid consultation with prepaid credit and that no platform credentials are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites beyond payment. The legal disclaimers provide some context but not direct usage guidance.

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