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

The description adds context about the read-only nature (consulta), the fact that data is not confidential (não é dado sigiloso), and the client's responsibility under LGPD. These go beyond the annotations, which only state readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or error conditions, so transparency is moderate.

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 relatively concise, consisting of three sentences without excessive verbosity. However, it includes redundant phrases about official sources and legal responsibilities, which could be streamlined. It is not poorly structured but could be more focused.

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 provides some context about the source and legal/payment aspects but omits any details about the expected output or return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should have clarified what the tool returns. It also lacks parameter explanations, making it incomplete for a user to effectively invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 0% as the description does not explain any of the five parameters (login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, codigo_parcela). Given the requirement that descriptions must compensate for low schema coverage, this is a major gap, making the parameters semantically opaque.

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 tool as a query for parcel details from INCRA SIGEF, an official Brazilian source. It specifies the resource (parcela) and the action (consulta), which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', but 'consulta' is sufficient.

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 mentions payment (pague por consulta) and legal compliance (LGPD), but does not provide clear guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks instructions on prerequisites or scenarios, so usage guidelines are weak.

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