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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's consultation nature. The description adds context about payment (pay per query, prepaid credit) and data governance (client is controller, no sensitive data), which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose technical behaviors like authentication requirements (PKCS12) beyond what schema suggests, or rate limits/availability.

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 that covers multiple topics (purpose, hosting, payment, LGPD) but is somewhat disorganized and dense. It front-loads the main purpose but then dives into legal talk that could be separated. It is not overly long but could be restructured for clarity.

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 relatively complex: 5 params, 3 required, no output schema. The description provides context on the data source and legal aspects but lacks key technical context: what does the tool return? If an output schema is absent, the description should explain the nature of the response. It also does not explain how the authentication works (PKCS12 vs CPF/senha) or the role of 'numero_certificacao'. Given 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full operation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'login_cpf' and 'login_senha' implicitly through 'sem credenciais da plataforma' and the auth context, but it does not explain 'numero_certificacao' or the optional PKCS12 params. The description fails to clarify which parameters are needed for what purpose, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the tool as 'Disponibilizador de Coordenadas' (coordinator provider) from INCRA, a consultation on official sources. It indicates the purpose of querying official Brazilian data but is vague about what 'coordenadas' specifically means (geographic coordinates? certificate numbers?) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are likely different operations.

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 explains the business model (prepaid credits, no platform credentials) and that the client controls data for LGPD purposes, implying a usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an INCRA account or certificates, except indirectly through required params.

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